Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed with an Amendment.

LEVER PARK BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

St. James's Park

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he will illuminate suitable parts of St. James's Park; and

(2) what estimate he has made of the capital and annual operational cost of illuminating suitable parts of St. James's Park.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My right hon. Friend is much attracted by this proposal, and he hopes to be able to carry out a modest scheme, costing perhaps £2,000–£3,000, in due course. The

operating cost should not be more than £400 a year.

Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising hope that something will be done here. Does not he agree that St. James's Park, if skilfully illuminated, would be enchanting and would add greatly to the attractiveness of London? Is there a chance of this being done by next summer?

Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to commit myself to when it would be done, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that floodlighting would make the park enchanting. However, if we spend money on this project, even though the amount is small, we shall possibly be unable to do something much more essential.

Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for cleaning the facade of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Loughlin: None at present, Sir.

Mr. Smith: As this is one of the most visited and observed buildings in the country, does not the hon. Gentleman think that great benefit would result, bearing in mind the success with the cleaning of other public buildings in London?

Mr. Loughlin: Of course some benefit may be derived from cleaning the building, but there is the question of cost, and in this case it would be about £200,000. The time scale would also be long. The Government are not prepared to spend £200,000 on such a project at the moment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman any plans for cleaning out the inside of the Palace of Westminster, which would save a lot of cost, by having a General Election?

Mr. Whitaker: Could not the cost be recouped for the purpose by a son et lumiére performance?

Mr. Loughlin: I will consider it.

Labour-only Contracting

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress


has been made with studies of labour-only contracting in the building and civil engineering industry.

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now publish a White Paper outlining the terms of the Government's proposed legislation on contractual liability for self-employed building workers.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. John Silkin): I am urgently considering these matters in consultation with my colleagues and I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend make this consideration as urgent as possible? Is he aware that many employers are avoiding their responsibilities to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the considerable growth in labour-only contracting is leading to a deterioration in standards in the building industry generally and in the conditions of those working in it?

Mr. Silkin: I am aware of those anxieties. The survey will be conducted with great dispatch.

Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that it is also important to carry responsibile opinion in all parts of the industry with him? Could he consider the suggestion in my Question of a White Paper before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is important to consider the views of the industry, but the question of a White Paper is premature.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building trade unions have given great consideration to this matter and are most anxious that legislation should be brought in at the earliest possible moment to deal with the iniquitous and scandalous operation of labour-only contracting at present?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the trade unions' point of view.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully aware of the impact of the selective employment tax in this matter and that it is making such legislation so much more urgent?

Mr. Silkin: This problem antedated the selective employment tax. However, there are a number of Questions on the Order Paper on the taxation aspect and I do not wish to anticipate them.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the future of labour-only sub-contracting in private contracts with his Department.

Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir. Progress on this must be considered as part of the examination of the Phelps Brown Report now in hand. But tinder my Department's existing conditions of contract the use of all sub-contractors must be approved by the superintending officer who is warned about the dangers of using the self-employed type of labour-only sub-contractor and is instructed to avoid this wherever practicable.

Mr. Judd: I am obliged for that reply, but would my right hon. Friend agree that among his own labour force there are still widespread misgivings about tax irregularities, falling standards of workmanship and hidden subsidies enjoyed by private contracting firms of this kind as a result of using Ministry equipment? Could he give reassurances in this respect?

Mr. Silkin: I know that my hon Friend has pressed this point vigorously before. My instructions to my Department on this question have recently been strengthened, but we need to consider the whole of the Phelps Brown Report, and this is now in hand.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on a Yorkshire Television programme called "Calendar" last Thursday three labour-only sub-contractors openly admitted to drawing unemployment benefit while working as labour only sub-contractors? Would my right hon. Friend make an investigation to see whether these people were employed on Government contracts by tenderers who might be doing work for the Government?

Mr. Silkin: This matter has been investigated a good deal and it has been shown that they were not. But the fact that they made those remarks lends


point to the need to discuss the whole question.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that S.E.T. is driving ordinary contractors to labour only sub-contracting?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that that is a very good argument, and I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's method of dealing with it. Clearly this is something which should be discouraged. Whatever blame is attached, it should not be done.

Federation of Carpet Manufacturers (Meeting)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will issue a statement outlining the result of the meeting his head of purchasing organisation had with the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers.

Mr. Loughlin: There has been a useful exchange of views and the Department is now awaiting suggestions from the Federation on possible future arrangements for discount contracts.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that a carpet firm in my constituency was very dissatisfied with the reorganisation of the contracts? Is he now telling the House that, as a consequence of this meeting, the disquiet of this firm can now be resolved?

Mr. Loughlin: The question with which we are dealing is part and parcel of a new policy in our purchasing section to get it running on the most efficient lines, so that we get the best value for money. The firm which my hon. Friend mentioned will be considered when new contracts are ready and are being arranged. Scotland generally should get a greater proportion of the purchases, because three of the six firms now holding discount contracts are north of the Border.

Price Increases (Early Warning Notification)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many notifications of price increases he has received under the early warning arrangements

since the Budget; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards these increases in the light of the balance of payments policy set out in that Budget.

Mr. John Silkin: Two, Sir. The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains as outlined in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement.

Mr. Biffen: But even in the modest rôle which the right hon. Gentleman is performing, can he confirm that he accepts sympathetically the argument for the need for price levels which will sustain levels of investment? Has his attention been drawn to the recent speeches of Sir John Reiss and Sir Halford Reddish on this point in respect of the cement industry?

Mr. Silkin: I am aware of this point, and I think that paragraph 16 of the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy meets the case.

Brick Supplies (Scotland)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the availability of bricks in Scotland.

Mr. John Silkin: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 21st May in answer to a similar Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 784, c. 106.]

Mr. Taylor: To which planning organisation should we credit the remarkable achievement of a glut of bricks in England and a pretty desperate shortage in Scotland? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that there has been a sharp decline in building starts and completions in Scotland in the first few months of the year? Will he look into this matter as one of great urgency?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has his facts slightly wrong. In fact, the shortage of bricks in Scotland relates only to the central belt, which is due to internal factors. Some brick makers have been unable to maintain full production through shortages of labour, because the labour has gone into other industries.

Harcourt Room (Pictures)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works on what criteria the selection of the pictures which are at present hanging in the Harcourt Room is based.

Mr. Loughlin: The selection is made on the recommendation of the Committee of Members which advises Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend on works of art in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently entertained several friends from the Commonwealth who have expressed disgust at the low standard of the pictures hanging in this room in the House? Would he confirm that the picture consisting of some straight lines which never meet is a reminder to the Ministry of Transport that the missing link between the M1, the M5 and the M6 is not yet completed?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman and I have a lot in common in this matter. We are both philistines and should leave this to people who understand art.

Mr. Ogden: While not claiming to be one of those people, as least I know what I enjoy. Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that some of these pictures may be excellent financial investments but provide little enjoyment? Would he consider using his powers of patronage to support living artists rather than dead ones, however eminent?

Mr. Loughlin: Practically all of the pictures in the Harcourt Room are on loan to us from the Tate Gallery, so they do not cost the House a halfpenny. It is right that all the schools of thought in art should be represented there for the benefit of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).

Mr. Strauss: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that hon. Members and their friends should be able to see in a room in this building examples of the outstanding British artists whose work has been bought by the Tate Gallery? Is he aware that the picture referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) is the work of an artist with a very high international reputation?

Mr. Loughlin: I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting very tired of the green lady at the end of the room—I do not know whether she is a former Minister of Transport—who looks as if she is suffering from the effects of the breathalyser?

Tower of London (Guided Tours)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will institute a regular system of guides for conducting parties round the Tower of London.

Mr. John Silkin: I believe that the present arrangements under which Yeoman Warders conduct parties round the Tower as part of their duties are generally favoured by visitors. Organised parties may bring in their own guides.

Mr. Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in competing for the services of these Yeomen Warders, school parties particularly are at a disadvantage? Could he not do something special for them.

Mr. Silkin: This is a very real difficulty. It is, I suppose, a case of too many school parties chasing too few guides. But in the summer season as many as 22,000 visitors go to the Tower in one day. The idea of increasing the number of guides, all of whom would no doubt tell exactly the same story but in conflicting voices, might be a little difficult.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend consider opening the Tower on winter Sundays, including mornings, since this is the only time when many working families have a chance to go there?

Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that the existing arrangements were good enough, but I will consider that.

Brick Stockpile

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the current size of the national brick stockpile; and what steps he is taking to reduce it.

Mr. Silkin: At the end of April stocks of bricks were 926 million. As my predecessor explained to the hon.


Member on 22nd April, this is a private enterprise sector of industry and I am not responsible for any over-estimation it may make. I have reason to expect, however, that stocks will be reduced over the summer months.—[Vol. 782, c. 238–9.]

Mr. Goodhart: Since brick production is now lower than it was when the Labour Government were elected in 1964, and since the brick stockpile is now larger than it has ever been at this time of the year, would the right hon. Gentleman advise the industry to increase or to decrease production?

Mr. Silkin: I would advise the industry to be aware of the forecasts which are made.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: But is it satisfactory for the Minister to deny responsibility for brick stocks, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in 1964 that a Labour Government would plan the bricks? Is this the fulfilment of that planning? Is it not his own Government's fault, in view of the fall in housing starts?

Mr. Silkin: If the correct forecasts are made and disregarded by the industry, the industry itself suffers.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend recognise and inform hon. Members opposite that many new techniques in house and other building are now taking place, and that the same use is not made of bricks?

Mr. Silkin: indicated assent.

Departmental Committees

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many committees sponsored by his Department are currently in existence which have as members persons outside the Civil Service, and, in particular, builders.

Mr. Loughlin: 47, of which 23 include builders.

Mr. Iremonger: Since the terms of reference of the Minister's National Consultative Council are virtually the same as those of the E.D.C.s, would it not be a good thing to start reducing this number by scrapping the latter?

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. There is another Question on this subject which

I should not anticipate. The hon. Member's supplementary question does not relate to his Question on the Order Paper.

British Standard Time

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further steps he has taken to estimate the effect on productivity in the civil engineering industry of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has now made of the effects on production in the building industry of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent action he has taken to publish evidence on the effects on the building industry of British Standard Time in the winter months.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what survey he has made of the effects on safety and productivity of building contractors of British Standard Time in midwinter; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Silkin: As my predecessor stated on 22nd April the results of the N.F.B.T.E. survey were passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 26th March, who stated that it was a cogent, well-substantiated and objective report which would carry full weight in the present assessment. No similar representations have been received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors on this subject. Further studies would not be helpful until the results of his interim assessment are known.—[Vol. 782, c. 240–2].

Mr. Iremonger: Is not the Minister aware that it is impossible artificially to light many of these building sites? Why should builders on these sites be handicapped by having to start late?

Mr. Silkin: I am well aware that the N.F.B.T.E. has given examples which it believes affect the whole of this issue. I am also confident that my right hon.


Friend the Home Secretary will take all these factors into consideration.

Mr. Costain: The Minister said that the civil engineers had not made any representations. Would it help him in his representations to the Home Secretary if they did so? He can take it from me that they find this problem very difficult.

Mr. Silkin: As I have said, this is a matter which can well be left to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wilson: What steps have been taken to pursue this matter with the Home Secretary?

Mr. Silkin: As I said a moment ago, my right hon. Friend has received the results of the N.F.B.T.E. survey

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend again draw the Home Secretary's attention to this report and to the fact that many hon. Members with deep understanding of the building industry warned when the legislation was introduced that for the building industry it would be an utter failure?

Mr. Silkin: This and other considerations and matters of balance will all be taken into account by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he needs me to add to them.

Civil Engineering Industry

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he now proposes to take to ensure continuing financial stability in the civil engineering industry.

Mr. John Silkin: I shall maintain my predecessor's policy of support for the longer-term planning of civil engineering work in the public sector.

Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor acknowledged a particular responsibility of the Government in this, as 90 per cent. of all civil engineering work is for the public sector? As civil engineering contracts do not have fluctuation clauses, would he not agree that firm price contracts are wrecked by constant increases in S.E.T., and will he make further representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Silkin: The inclusion of tax fluctuation clauses is another question.

Mr. Ashton: As the rolling programme for roads forecast has been a success, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to extend this sort of forecasting into other sectors of the civil engineering industry?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the development of rolling programmes has made headway, especially with roads. The economic development committees are examining the prospects of developing further applications of this technique.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors in regard to the effect of selective employment tax on the civil engineering industry and what reply he has sent.

Mr. John Silkin: Representatives of the F.C.E.C. have discussed with me the treatment of the impending S.E.T. increase in respect of current contracts, and the more general question of tax fluctuation clauses in civil engineering contracts. I am considering these matters urgently in consultation with my colleagues, and I am not yet in a position to give a final answer.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the S.E.T. increases impose serious additional burdens on the whole construction industry? Would he not agree that it will be difficult to get fixed price contracts in future if there is always a danger of such sudden savage increases in tax?

Mr. Silkin: I am fully aware of the feelings of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increases in the productivity of the construction industry he estimates have taken place as a result of the levying of selective employment tax.

Mr. John Silkin: Since 1966 output per head on new work has increased at an average annual rate of 6½ per cent. as compared with the previous rate of about 4 per cent., but whether this acceleration is wholly due to S.E.T. I am not in a position to estimate.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for making that reservation in his Answer, because undoubtedly the result of S.E.T. has been more self-employed direct labour and an increase in the prices of all building products.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the figure which he has given for the increase in productivity has been accomplished with a smaller work force than that employed during 1966?

Mr. Silkin: That is a very good point. Between 1966 and 1968, the work force of private contractors fell by over 2 per cent. a year while their output increased by an annual rate of nearly 4½ per cent.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main effect of S.E.T. on this industry is a falling-away in apprentices and a considerable increase in labour only subcontracting? Will he take that into account and get something done to relieve the burden on this industry?

Mr. Silkin: I have heard that suggested, but so far I have had no concrete evidence of a fall-away in apprentices. I am very well aware of the problem of labour only sub-contracting, and I am studying it closely.

Government Building Corporation

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received to set up a Government Building Corporation; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the setting up of a Government Building Corporation.

Mr. John Silkin: I have received no representation from any quarter about a Government Building Corporation, but I am willing to examine any relevant proposals which might lead to improved efficiency in the industry.

Mr. Goodhart: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will not waste his time on plans for yet another wasteful public corporation, but will instead concentrate his efforts on trying to reduce the burdens that the Government have put on industry, burdens such as S.E.T.?

Mr. Silkin: I will certainly give the hon. Member an assurance that I will not waste my time, but I do not accept the rest of his question.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a building corporation were brought into being it would certainly increase building costs? Will he resist such a proposal?

Mr. Silkin: I would not agree, because in any event I have not yet considered the question, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider it I should be delighted to do so.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a building corporation could well augment the housing programme in the great cities with the most serious housing problems? Will he look sympathetically at any scheme which may be put before him by the trade unions or by individual hon. Members which could help towards that end?

Mr. Silkin: I will always look sympathetically at any scheme put forward to me by trade unions or individual hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend.

Marble Imports

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is aware that the importation of foreign marble into this country amounts to approximately £2 million worth a year; what approximate proportion of such imports are used in buildings for which his department is responsible; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to use materials of British origin in substitution.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir. The volume of marble and marble-type imports in 1968 was 72,000 tons, valued at £1·8 million. So far as the Department is concerned the use of marble is kept to a minimum. The estimated annual use of slab marble and chippings in the Department's buildings is approximately 160 tons, valued at about £1,750.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not suggest that all Government buildings are marble halls, but will the Minister bear in mind that there is now a perfectly adequate British substitute for marble and that we could stop this little drain on our balance of payments?

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that £1,750 is a little drain. We do our best with our own buildings to ensure that when there is a material which may be substituted for marble, it is used.

Directly Employed Labour

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his studies of the relationship between his Department's directly-employed labour force and the maintenance workers directly employed by local authorities: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his Department's studies of the possibility of co-operation between his own direct labour force and those of local authorities.

Mr. John Silkin: I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 20th May, I do not rule this out.—[Vol. 784, c. 246.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that the studies which the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a Question on 20th May he was to undertake, have started, and when in his estimate will they be completed?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is far too kind to me. Three weeks is not a very long time, especially when two weeks have been spent in Recess. When the various improvements in my D.E.L. as outlined in my statement of 20th May have come into effect, that will be the moment to consider this question.

Mr. Holland: In view of the failure of a number of these direct labour organisations, is not the best way in which the right hon. Gentleman could give them the consideration his hon. Friend suggests they deserve be to take no further action?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comment, but it is not a view which is universally shared. Many local authority direct labour organisations are extremely successful and

it is interesting to note that many private enterprise undertakings also have efficient direct labour forces.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Would net my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an advantage to local authorities if he outlined to them the lessons he has learned from his own D.E.L.?

Mr. Silkin: There may be lessons not only for local authorities, but for all others in the operation of D.E.L. by my Ministry. I will certainly get in touch with my right hon. Friends about this.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting in the Library a copy of the Labour Party's This Week dated 16th May which contained much more information than the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House in his statement?

Mr. Silkin: I will always consider anything the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if he is to go into this matter in some depth, he should also consider the number of bankruptcies among private enterprise building firms? The number is legion, higher than for any other industry. Will he also recognise that local authorities provide conditions of employment about 20 per cent. better than those in private enterprise?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend made the same point to me on 20th May and my reply is the same.

National Consultative Council

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will now review the terms of reference of the National Consultative Council: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir.

Mr. Costain: Further to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), is there not a good case for amalgamating these two committees? They do similar work. Would not the committee time be cut if they were amalgamated?

Mr. Loughlin: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the National


Consultative Council and the E.D.C.s. If he looks at the constitutions of both bodies, he will find that they deal with entirely different facets. [Interruption.] I have the constitution before me. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "No". There is liaison between both committees to ensure that there is no overlapping of work.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the future of the Construction Industry Research and Information Association.

Mr. John Silkin: The Construction Industry Research and Information Association has informed me that its income is inadequate for its current and future tasks. My officials are at present discussing the situation with representatives of the industry, and the matter will come before my National Consultative Council on 25th July. I will make a further statement as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is reasonable that the same organisation should be responsible for both research and information? Would it not be better if this difficult problem were dealt with by obtaining a solution from the industry which was agreed and not imposed upon it?

Mr. Silkin: I acknowledge that the purely voluntary basis of the C.I.R.I.A. has failed and we may have to consider other possibilities.

Events in 1971 (Working Party)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of his Working Party on Events in 1971.

Mr. Loughlin: The Working Party was set up by the National Consultative Council to co-ordinate events to mark the Golden Jubilee of the Building Research Station. The Working Party has so far held one meeting, and in due course will publish a list of events.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Gas Industry (Legislation)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation affecting the gas industry in the present session of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): I am not yet able to give a date of the introduction of the legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman at least say whether legislation will be introduced this Session or next Session? He has dangled this possibility before the House for some time and it would be of great service to us if we knew when we might expect the legislation.

Mr. Freeson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am aware of the date involved, but I am not in a position to say when the Bill will be introduced. However, it will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

British Steel Corporation (Investment Programme)

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Power whether he has yet approved the investment programme of the British Steel Corporation; and if he wil make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is considering it now.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the N.B.P.I. Report on steel prices is a monstrous intereference with the commercial practice of the British Steel Corporation? What effect does he think it will have on the investment programme which his right hon. Friend is currently drawing up?

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend will make a further statement on the Report to the House as soon as possible. In the meantime, I comment in a similar spirit to that in which I answered the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley): I would not accept the hon. Gentleman as the best spokesman for the publicly-owned steel industry.

Opencast Executive (Land Reclamation)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the recommendations of the Hunt Committee that the National Coal Board's Opencast Executive should be used as the basis for a land reclamation agency.

Mr. Freeson: This is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whose position was explained by the Minister for Planning and Land in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 6th May [Vol. 783, c. 53]. The Opencast Executive is indeed admirably suited to undertake land reclamation, and I hope that more local authorities will call on its expertise and services.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to stress the importance of a national land reclamation agency and the great value of the work done by the Opencast Executive?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree, as I have just said, and as I have said previously. The Opencast Executive is well suited to undertake this kind of work, and I hope that it wil be called upon to do more work of this kind; but this is a matter essentially for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend initiate discussion with that Ministry to make rapid progress in this matter in view of the great importance laid upon it by the Hunt Committee?

Mr. Freeson: I am in touch with the National Coal Board on their responsibility in this, and I would like to leave it at that for the moment.

Electricity (Resale Price)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what measures he has now considered to increase public awareness of the maximum resale price of electricity.

Mr. Freeson: I have nothing to add as yet to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1140.]

Mr. Osborn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the inquiries being

conducted by the Consultative Council, by Manchester University students and at Sheffield, and will he say what is the outcome?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the inquiries of the Consultative Council to which the hon. Gentleman refers and of other consultative council inquiries which are going on, because I have to some extent been involved in initiating those inquiries and have had discussions with the councils concerned.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not just a question of increasing public awareness of the maximum price at which electricity can be resold, but putting weapons into the hands of consumers who are being victimised so that they can reclaim the amounts by which they are being overcharged?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree that there are a quite large and perhaps unknown number of cases where consumers who are ill-protected are suffering as a result of overcharging. As I have previously said in the House, I am looking into this question as thoroughly as possible.

Privately installed Electricity Meters

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Power how many representations he has received in the last 12 months from electricity consumers on the prices which they are paying for electricity through privately installed meters.

Mr. Freeson: Twenty-one individually, but others have come on behalf of classes and groups of consumers.

Mr. Stainton: May I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I have received in my constituency vastly more complaints than the number which he has received as a Minister? What consultations has he had with his colleagues to make overcharging a criminal offence, as recommended by the Consumer Council?

Mr. Freeson: As I have said. I have initiated discussions on this matter in many directions; we are looking into the subject. May I say not only to the hon. Member but to other hon. Members that the Department would welcome more evidence of cases of overcharging

Gas Industry (Unofficial Strikes)

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to ensure that unofficial strikes in the gas industry do not create a situation in which life and property are endangered.

Mr. Freeson: Strikes at gas works are very rare and are, in the first instance, best left to the good sense of the Gas Boards, employees and trade unions to settle or avoid.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is intolerable that the people of this country should be endangered by unofficial strikes, and when will his Government publish a Bill to deal with this matter?

Mr. Freeson: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down his Question to the appropriate Minister, and contains his simulated indignation on the matter.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that gas workers who come out on strike are in law guilty of a criminal offence? In view of his reply, with which I wholly agree, does not this show how ridiculous it is to impose penal provisions against those who come out on strike?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Ridley: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that a compulsory cooling-off period would be appropriate to the gas industry and, if so, will he say whether it will be brought in?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Miners (Wages)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what are the current average weekly earnings of the employees of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Freeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 17th February, 1969.—[Vol. 778, c. 18.]

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the very low relative level to which miners' wages have sunk may well be the reason for the drop in the ability of the Coal Board to hold its labour in

the productive coalfields? Is he aware that the arguments put forward about morale might be stronger if the level of miners' wages was a little higher?

Mr. Freeson: A number of factors are involved in the employment question in the better colliery areas other than the point which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman. In any case, I would not rely on him as a spokesman for the National Union of Mineworkers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Authority Purchasing

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations of the Joint Review Body on Local Authority Purchasing.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Most of the Joint Review Body's recommendations were addressed to Government Departments and to the local authorities jointly, and my right hon. Friend will first want to discuss them with all concerned. I understand that the local authority associations have now considered the report and will be ready to discuss it with him very soon.

Mr. Boston: I welcome the progress of the consultations, but will my hon. Friend agree that this is an important matter, not least because of the scope for increasing efficiency, and will he say when he hopes to be in a position to make a fuller statement?

Mr. MacColl: I share my hon. Friend's view that this is an important Report. My right hon. Friend is anxious to obtain constructive results for his consideration, and he does not therefore wish to over-press the local authority associations. As soon as they come to him, he will be ready to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES (VISITS)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister which of the countries of the Common Market he proposes to visit this year.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no immediate plans to visit any of the Common Market countries.

Mr. Marten: Before the Prime Minister makes any visits or reopens negotiations with the Common Market, will he see that there are published, for the benefit of the country as a whole, economic studies of the effect of Britain joining the Common Market? Would not it be absolute folly to start negotiations from the position of economic weakness in which we are now?

The Prime Minister: I see no reason in present circumstances to change the general estimates given to the House during the major three-day debate on the Common Market two years ago, but certainly before any final decision is taken to enter into negotiations—and that depends not on us but on others—we would wish to inform the House and consider in those circumstances what further information should be sought.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: If my right hon. Friend reopens negotiations, will he reiterate his pledge by making it clear that Great Britain would not agree to join a Federal Europe? Is not the membership of the Foreign Secretary of a Committee called European Committee inconsistent with that pledge?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As we have all said many times, and certainly in the debate to which I have referred, there is no immediate prospect for a long time to come of that development occurring. Joining the Communities would not involve any action of that kind. We would, of course, be required—and this we have said we are prepared to do—to accept the obligations, including the political obligations, of joining the Common Market, but they do not include either a federation or any military involvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of the work of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, the Monopolies Commission, the Restrictive Practices Court and the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The Prime Minister: These matters are kept under review but I have no proposals to make at present.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in certain activities these organisations might be in direct conflict with one another? Is there any formal or informal machinery to ensure that such conflict does not arise, and, if there is not, will he create some?

The Prime Minister: There has been some public comment that at the margin there could be demarcation difficulties between certain of these bodies, and that is why steps are constantly taken to see that in any decision about a reference to one or other of them there is proper co-ordination to ensure that the matter goes to the right body. There is a problem, and we are looking at it.

Mr. David Howell: Are there not 11 departments and agencies all trying to interfere with industrial policy, and does not this cast doubt on the value of the Prime Minister's five-year old pledge to streamline Whitehall?

The Prime Minister: Entirely different functions are covered by the bodies referred to. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has an important job to do in streamlining industry and making industry more effective. It has had tremendous successes in many industries, particularly engineering. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has helped the industry enormously. The Monopolies Commission has the powers given to it by this House, and it has a very different function from that of the N.B.P.I. All these bodies are necessary, and we are trying to some extent to co-ordinate their activities a little more.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Since the Question links the Restrictive Practices Court with three executive bodies, will the Prime Minister make it clear that the Restrictive Practices Court is a judicial body discharging judicial functions under statutory provisions, and that there is no intention on the part of his Government to limit or encroach upon its judicial independence?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although when he uses the words "executive body" to describe the others it could


give the wrong impression. The Monopolies Commission, though not a court, is an investigatory body; it has no executive powers. The same is true of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is an operational agency to promote mergers in industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what further communications he has received from the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what further exchanges he has had recently with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what was the date of the last communication received from the Rhodesian Prime Minister on a possible settlement on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals or otherwise.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the White Paper (Command 4065) which was published on 3rd June.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, as yesterday the House gave full support to the people of Gibraltar based on the principle of free determination and on our historical association, it would now be the most venal hypocrisy if we did not advocate the same policy towards Rhodesia? Would he ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to join him in condemning apartheid and racialism wherever it exists?

The Prime Minister: I thought that both right hon. Gentlemen had condemned it in the Rhodesia context. So far as self-determination is concerned, we have made it clear—this no doubt has been one of the stumbling blocks in the negotiations—as our predecessors made it clear, that no constitution is acceptable to the British Government or, we believe, to this House which does not give the people of Rhodesia as a whole the opportunity

of determining whether they accept it. That is our position and will always be our position.

Mr. Winnick: In view of what has been said in Rhodesia in the last fortnight, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that any agreement between a British Government and the illegal régime would not be worth the paper it was written on? Does he not agree that the courageous statement by the Bishops in Salisbury last week was also a condemnation of the type of race poison which we had from the dishonourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, it was because we recognised the tendencies of members of the régime that in the "Fearless" proposals we insisted on watertight proposals and guarantees to ensure fulfilment of the six principles. The "Fearless" proposals were turned down by the other side to the dispute. Mr. Smith has now said in his speech that the new constitution he is proposing is a racialist one. To the extent that he is racialistic it will be condemned by every hon. and right hon. Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) referred to one of his Parliamentary colleagues as "the dishonourable Member". He must withdraw that.

Mr. Faulds: Absolutely correct. That is the Member over there—unprincipled, un-Christian, undemocratic and racialist.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must restrain himself while I am dealing with his colleague.

Mr. Winnick: I was quite conscious of what I was going to say, and what I said. My quarrel was with the right hon. Gentleman, not with you, Mr. Speaker. If you ask me to withdraw, I have no alternative but to withdraw.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever Mr. Smith may say about it, is it not the case that his proposals provide for a multi-racial Parliament? May I ask the Prime Minister, since he cannot impose principles on Rhodesia, whether it was


worth while for him to let the "Fearless" negotiations, in which he was supported by this House, fail because of the external safeguards? Did he fully explore the possibility of a treaty between the two countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he propose to do nothing between the present time and the holding of the referendum?

The Prime Minister: Even the hon. Gentleman's continuing apologia for this régime over four years, I should have thought, would have reached its limit when he felt called upon to defend the new constitution on the ground that it is a multi-racial Parliament. It is even described by its author as a racialist constitution. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been among all the other hon. Members of the House in condemning it. But apparently his loyalty to the régime is greater than his loyalty to the six principles. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, we took the initiative in the face of great criticism in this House and abroad in initiating the "Fearless" discussions. We put forward fair propositions to them. We can now see why they have not been accepted in the light of the statement. They did not founder on the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It was always clear that we were prepared to accept any alternative effective second safeguard.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister suggested that I have loyalty to a Government other than Her Majesty's Government. All that I have done in the matter of Rhodesia has been directed to British interests as I have seen them. Mr. Speaker, will you ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of political argument between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Delargy: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the protests made in Rhodesia by Anglican and Catholic bishops and by Methodist leaders in expressing their abhorrence at the Rhodesian Government's handling of the constitution issue, in expressing their detestation of the terms of the referendum, and in calling on people everywhere

who cherish tolerance to join with them in their protest?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I saw first on one day the protest by the Roman Catholic archbishop and four bishops, and on the second I saw the statement by all the Churches, except the Dutch Reformed Church, on this question. I would pay tribute, as I am sure would the House, to the great courage shown by the Churches in Rhodesia, not only during this last weekend, but even before U.D.I. in their very strong warning of the effects. I imagine that there is no hon. Member who does not deplore the treatment by the régime and its racialist supporters of the Anglican bishops in Rhodesia.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as a matter of urgency what additional steps can be taken before 20th June, other than a short-wave broadcast, to draw the attention of the white electors of Rhodesia to the almost universal abhorrence and condemnation in the United Kingdom of this racialist constitution?

The Prime Minister: I hope that what has been said in this House this afternoon will be reported in Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made a very strong speech on this subject this afternoon. I hope that early copies will be available to hon. Members; they certainly will be available in Rhodesia. Other methods are being considered.
I am quite certain that if all parties in the House were unequivocal in condemning the new constitution and in making clear that we can have no dealings with that kind of situation, this of itself would have a profound effect in Rhodesia. It would express, on behalf of the whole House, our recognition of our trusteeship for the 4 million people who will not be voting in the referendum.

Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that Smith's latest move merely underlines what some of us have always maintained—that he had no intention of reaching a settlement on the six principles, that he is an avowed racialist and that he always was, still is, and presumably, short of Christian conversion, always will be, an unprincipled twister?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends warned me against getting into negotiations with him. I still think that it was right to have the negotiations on board H.M.S. "Fearless". At the time there was no reason to think that he was not negotiating in good faith. I believe that if he had been able to work out the agreement and he could have got it through the racialist majority of his party, he would have signed the agreement and stuck to it. But it was clear that, when the chance came after H.M.S. "Tiger", he ran away under the racialist pressure of his own Right wing.

Mr. Amery: Could the Prime Minister explain why the Government appear to have made no attempt to explore the alternative possible second safeguards, such as a treaty, and those which were proposed by Sir Albert Robinson, in which Mr. Smith appeared to show some interest after the return from Salisbury of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).

The Prime Minister: Mr. Smith occasionally appears to show interest, until you get him round the negotiating table. So far as a question of a treaty is concerned, we discussed it with him in 1965, not only here but in Rhodesia. In the end he turned it down and said realistically that what is important is what is in the treaty. We could not reach agreement. We offered him a number of alternatives to the safeguards, which he would not accept, including the possibility of safeguards confined to the internal Rhodesian position requiring no external safeguards. But he turned down the treaty on H.M.S. "Tiger" on the ground that it would have to be registered in the United Nations—not his favourite body.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. King, to ask Question No. 4.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND COMMISSION

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer supervision of the Land Commission from the

Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Treasury.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. King: Has not Treasury pressure turned this levy into little more than a tax, and, in so far as it now depends upon a chance date in the calendar, has it not become almost a game of chance? If not the Treasury, would the Prime Ministr consider putting it under the Minister responsible for sport?

The Prime Minister: That is very funny, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the view that he has expressed. Indeed, he has expressed it before. However, in Question and Answer at Question Time I have no hope of converting him. But he will be aware that we have had two major debates on this matter and, more recently, when Clauses 36 and 38 of the Finance Bill were debated, all these points were argued. I cannot add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friends in those debates.

Mr. Graham Page: Is it not a fact that the Land Commission is insolvent? Has it not borrowed millions of £s more than the value of the land that it holds? Would it not be wise to hand over to the Treasury this insolvent undertaking and prevent its inept meddling in land development in the future?

The Prime Minister: Again, these matters were dealt with in the debates to which I have referred. For reasons which the hon. Gentleman knows, the land acquisition programme has proceeded more slowly than we hoped. I know the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to return to a free market in land, under which vast profits would be made. They were made for 13 years, and the then Government refused to do anything about the situation when we pressed them. Millions of pounds were made out of local authorities and owner-occupiers.

Mr. Hooley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the major purpose of the Land Commission is to acquire land for socially useful purposes and that it could play a useful part in dealing with the general problem of dereliction? Will he resist all attempts to turn it into a tax collecting unit?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, we know the reasons why the land acquisition programme has proceeded slowly. It has been a question of the release by local authorities of land for development. As that is improving, and as the release increases, the Commission can take on the principal function entrusted to it by Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR WOLVERHAMPTON, SOUTH-WEST

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of grave public importance. Is there any way in which the Christian right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) can be induced to discuss in this Chamber—which he has so far failed to have the courage to do—the matters upon which he always pontificates before sympathetic audiences wherever he can find them? Is there any way in which we can do this?

Mr. Speaker: This is a point of political criticism, and political criticism is not unknown in Britain. It is not a point of order for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. William Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must temper his enthusiasm. I have ruled on his point of order.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must by now know what Parliamentary behaviour is. I have ruled on his point of order.

Mr. Faulds: This is another point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Another point of order.

Mr. Faulds: You have refused to countenance discussion of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, because you have

said that it is a matter of political disagreement. This question, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raises whenever he feels that there is some use that he can make of it for his political ambitions, is a fundamental, moral problem and not a political one. In those terms are not we allowed to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any hon. Member can discuss almost anything on the proper Parliamentary occasion. The hon. Gentleman has said that the right hon. Gentleman has raised a moral point. Mr. Speaker is not a moral judge—

Mr. Faulds: I had hoped that you were, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker cannot compel any hon. Member to speak in the House of Commons. Indeed, one of his jobs is sometimes to try to resist hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, MUNICH (REPORT OF INQUIRY)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. VAN STRAUBENZEE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make public the findings of the Second Fay inquiry into the circumstances of the Munich air crash of 1958; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 74.
The report of Mr. Fay's inquiry is being published this afternoon.
Mr. Fay and his colleagues were asked to consider whether blame for the Munich accident of February, 1958, was to be imputed to Captain Thain. Following protracted and exhaustive examination of all the available evidence which included re-examination of a number of the witnesses, the inquiry has concluded that

1. The cause of the accident was slush on the runway.
2. It is possible but unlikely that wing icing was a contributory cause


3. Captain Thain was not at fault with regard to runway slush.
4. Captain Thain was at fault with regard to wing icing, but, because wing icing is unlikely to have been a contributory cause of the accident, blame for the accident cannot in this respect be imputed to him.
5. Captain Thain was at fault in permitting Captain Rayment to occupy the captain's seat, but this played no part in causing the accident.

Mr. Fay and his assessors, in accordance with their terms of reference, have, therefore, reported that in their opinion Captain Thain cannot be blamed for the accident.
Her Majesty's Government accept this finding and the Government of the Federal German Republic have been so informed.
We are very grateful to Mr. Fay and to his assessors, Professor Collar and Captain Jeffrey, for the extremely thorough examination they have made of the whole question. Their report has, I believe, now established as far as will ever be possible the full circumstances of this tragic accident.
I am sure that the House would wish me to congratulate Captain Thain on the successful outcome to his long campaign.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister understand how grateful are all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been concerned with this matter over 10 years for the statement that he has just made? Will he regard it as appropriate at this moment to record the name of Mr. Peter Remnant, my predecessor, upon whose sturdy interest in the matter at the start much of this outcome turns?
Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether, in informing the Federal German Government of the outcome of this report, he will suggest to them that the findings should in some way be inscribed upon the findings of their own original inquiry, which itself was the cause of the 10 years of tension and anxiety under which Captain Thain has been living?

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about his predecessor.

Credit is also due to the hon. Gentleman himself for what he has done to keep the matter alive. The outcome fully justifies the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a year ago to hold this inquiry.
As for the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, we have let the Federal German Government know the form of the report, but it is too early to have a reaction from them. I am sure that they will take note of all that is said in the House today. I know that we shall have such further consultations with them as may be necessary.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their wisdom in setting up this inquiry? Is my hon Friend aware that the people of Man chester and elsewhere who mourned the loss of many of our city's great sportsmen in that disaster will welcome the outcome of the inquiry and the availability now of facts that were not previously known?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. There will be considerable relief at the outcome of the inquiry in view of the tragic circumstances of 11 years ago. We can only regret that it has taken such a very long time.

Mr. Corfield: While very much welcoming the findings of the Fay Committee, may I ask the Minister whether I am right in assuming that the findings depend very much on evidence that was available to the Federal German authorities, but was not, in fact, taken into account by them? If this is true, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Federal German authorities that this has led, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has said, to 10 years of very acute anxiety on the part of Captain Thain?
Finally, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which the hon. Gentleman has extended to Captain Thain. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and others, whether there is some means by which a British subject in this kind of situation, who eventually clears himself, may be recuperated to some extent for some of the considerable cost that this has entailed.

Mr. Rodgers: On the first point, it is very difficult, 11 years after the event, to know exactly what the outcome of the first German inquiry might have been if all the evidence which has since become available had been available then. As the House will know, evidence on the effects of slush on runways was a fairly late discovery, and largely the result of work done at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. We have taken note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind about evidence which was only partially available, and we have drawn this to the attention of the Federal German Government.
On the second point, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. No compensation can fully redress the sense of grievance which Captain Thain must have. We shall look sympathetically at what might possibly be done for him. Any question of compensation from the Federal German Government would be a matter initially for Captain Thain.

Mr. Lubbock: We should like to associate ourselves with the congratulations that the Minister expressed on behalf of the House to Captain Thain in the successful conclusion of his 11-year fight to clear his name.
Might I suggest, in relation to the attitude of the Federal German Government, that the hon. Gentleman should offer to send experts from the Board of Trade to discuss the latest findings with the Federal German authorities to see whether their agreement might be obtained to the report which has just been published so that everyone will be on the same wavelength and Captain Thain will also be cleared by the Federal German authorities as well as by our own inquiry?

Mr. Rodgers: That is the kind of procedure which might be appropriate in the circumstances.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating what the Minister has just said in answer to the question about compensation by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), may we take it that if the Federal German Government are not prepared to compensate Captain Thain, who has shown great restraint and dignity over all those years, he will be taken care of on a reasonable basis by B.E.A. or the

Government, as he worked for a nationalised industry?

Mr. Rodgers: It is too early to make any assumption about how the Federal German Government may react. Difficult questions are involved because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the circumstances of Captain Thain's dismissal were not directly concerned with the specific cause of the accident. Obviously, everyone will look sympathetically at the position in which Captain Thain finds himself.

NATIONAL INSURANCE, INDUSTRIAL INJURIES, SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS AND WAR PENSIONS (BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about improvements in national insurance and industrial injuries benefits, supplementary benefits and war pensions and about increases in the contributions of the insurance schemes.
I have presented today a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the national insurance and industrial injuries schemes. A Financial Memorandum is attached to the Bill. An explanatory White Paper and a report by the Government Actuary will be available later this afternoon.
The House already knows that the Government proposes to increase the main standard benefit rates of the national insurance scheme by 10s. a week for a single person and 16s. for a married couple. This will restore to the flat-rate benefits the value lost because of the rise in prices in the two years since the last increase in October, 1967. The cost of the total increase, including industrial injuries, will be about £247 million in the first full year. It is proposed that the new rates of benefit should come into effect at the beginning of November.
The levels of supplementary benefits will be increased at the same time. For the two main categories—the single householder and the married couple—increases of 5s. and 8s. are proposed. Taking into account the first instalment they have been receiving since October. 1968, they will then have had increases


of 10s. and 16s. respectively since October, 1967—the same increases as are now proposed in the standard rates of national insurance benefits, which have remained unchanged since that date.
Supplementary benefit levels for other categories, including children, will also be increased. Draft regulations to provide for all these changes will be laid for approval by the House in due course.
There will also be increases in war pensions.
I will, with permission, circulate a list of the principal proposals for supplementary benefits and changes in war pensions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I now turn to contributions which need to be increased not only because of higher benefits, but owing to two other factors: the greatly increased number of pensioners and the higher cost of short-term benefits.
As the House already knows, the total required in a full year is about £430 million. With the Exchequer contribution remaining at 18 per cent., i.e. £70 million, this leaves about £360 million to be found from increased contributions. The traditional way of raising this sum would have been by putting the whole burden on the flat-rate contribution. This would have meant an increase of 3s. 4d. each for employer and employee.
The Government rejected this as an intolerable imposition on the lower-paid worker. Instead, we thought it right to move towards the new scheme of national superannuation by raising most of the additional contribution on an earnings related basis. The flat-rate increase for an employed man, including industrial injuries, has been held down to 1s. a week and for an employed woman to 11d., whereas the present ½ per cent. graduated contribution on earnings between £18 and £30 a week will be raised by 2¾ per cent.
The biggest increase—for a man earning £30 or more a week—will be 7s. 7d. a week, made up of 1s. flat-rate contribution and 6s. 7d. graduated contribution. On the other hand, about 6 million employees who earn less than £18 a week will have only the 1s. flat-rate increase to pay.
I now turn to the benefits which employees will receive from these increased

contributions. Let me emphasise that these additional graduated contributions, which will apply all across the board, both those in the State scheme and those contracted-out, will earn additional pension rights. But the greatest weakness of the graduated scheme introduced by our predecessors in 1961 was that it included no device for making these graduated pensions inflation-proof. Indeed, ever since 1961 their value has been shrinking year by year.
The Government have, therefore, decided that from 1972, when the new scheme comes into operation, the biennial review will guarantee the value not only of new scheme earnings-related pensions and the present flat-rate pensions as indicated in the White Paper, but also of the small graduated element in the present scheme which is earned by all those who pay graduated contributions. This will apply not only to pension entitlement earned in the three years between now and 1972, but also to the pension earned in the last eight years.
I should warn the House that this decision may cause problems to some employers and contracted-out workers. I should make it clear, however, that contracted out employers will not be required to revalue the equivalent pension benefits for employees who have left or may leave their employment before retiring age. But it will be for the employer to decide whether any improvement should be made in the light of all the circumstances and, since the decision will not take effect until after 1972, this will leave ample time for further consultations on this complex issue.
On the other hand, the decision to revalue the 1961 graduated element of the present pensions scheme will, I am sure, be welcomed by all those whose graduated pension rights have been frozen by the previous Government's legislation. Now they will be able, for the first time, to look forward in their retirement to graduated pensions that will be revealed in the light of changes in the value of money and the level of earnings.

Lord Balniel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will welcome the fact that at long last the


long saga of evasion is coming to an end, and that the public will soon be aware of the full implications of the Budget speech?
First on the level of benefits, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £4 10s. pension of October, 1967, has declined in value by 9s., so that the 10s. increase, even if it came into operation straight away, would only just restore the value to the 1967 level? Is it not clear that by the time seven months have elapsed, and the present trend of price increases has continued, the 10s. increase in the benefit will hardly raise it to the 1967 level? Therefore, this vast increase in contribution will only just compensate for the rapid erosion of the pension which is occurring today.
Second, am I right in thinking that a man with average earnings of £23 a week will have to pay an extra 3s. 8d. a week—1s. flat rate, and 2s. 8d. graduated contribution?
Third, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the fourth measure since October, 1967, to correct a miscalculated deficit in the National Insurance Fund, and that with such major short-term miscalculations we can have no confidence at all in the honesty of the long-term projects included in the right hon. Gentleman's earnings-related pension scheme?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about the level of benefits. We are restoring the value to that of October, 1967, and next November, when we pay the first pension, we shall be paying a pension 20 per cent. higher in real terms than the pension paid by the Tories when they were in power.
Second, my calculation of the increase to be paid by the average wage-earner—the figures are in the White Paper in detail—and I have only the group between £18 and £21, is that it will be a total of between 2s. 10d. and 3s.
The hon. Gentleman's third question related to what he called the miscalculated deficit. He is right in saying that the amount to be spent was under-calculated. The major factor was a demographic miscalculation, and perhaps I might give the House the figures, because they are remarkable. Twelve years ago there were 4¾ million pensioners; now

there are more than 7 million. Between March, 1967, and the end of 1968, a period of 21 months, the number of pensioners increased by more than half a million, from 6·49 million to 7 million. It is true that a great miscalculation was made about the longevity of people. The major cause of the increased cost is the increased number of pensioners.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: My right hon. Friend has referred to increases for the war disabled and industrially injured. Is he saying that there will be nothing in the Bill to help the thousands of civilian disabled, particularly disabled housewives, who have been in touch with him on many occasions to ask for the help that seems to be their due?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I explain in the White Paper, and I explain to my hon. Friend, that the new constant attend ance allowance for the totally disabled housewife is part of our new scheme and cannot be introduced until that scheme is introduced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position in respect of those workers who are contracted out of the 1959 Act scheme? Are they to pay graduated contributions on top of the contributions they pay to their employers' scheme? Are they also to get graduated benefits on top of the benefits of that scheme? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman worked out the effect on the private schemes? Second, is the income tax allowance for employees to be increased in view of the substantial increase which they are making in contributions?

Mr. Crossman: The answer to the second question is that there is no change. The answer to the first question, about contracted-out employees, is that we are taking the ½ per cent. which they are paying at present for sickness and unemployment and increasing it by 2¾ per cent. In return, as on the ½ per cent., they will receive their full pension entitlement. Everybody will get a pension entitlement for the increased graduated contribution, whether they are inside or outside the scheme.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend say what the extra amount would have been if supplementary benefits had been increased by the same amount as the


pension? As I think my right hon. Friend knows, this is a source of great irritation and criticism, and I think we are entitled to some explanation about it.
As regards the graduated scheme, many of us support this basis of graduating the amount, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not fair for the £20 to £30 a week worker necessarily indefinitely to carry the lower-paid worker because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be reasonably brief. Long questions mean fewer questions.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I am thinking of the payment of family allowances, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has not set the figure too low in saying that the middle income group is £20 to £30 a week?

Mr. Crossman: If my right hon. Friend reads my statement he will see that I have given a careful explanation about supplementary benefits. The explanation is that those on supplementary benefit received the first instalment of their increase, namely, 5s., last year when national insurance rates were not increased. Therefore, to make the two equal, they take the second part of their instalment this year when the national insurance beneficiary gets the total 10s.
I am surprised at my hon. Friend's attitude about higher paid workers. I thought that there was agreement on our side that the flat-rate imposition was intolerable, that for the last 10 years we had steadily increased the proportion of the income paid by the lower-paid worker, and that the higher-paid worker had not paid his share. We had sought to do what we can to see that the benefits under the present graduated scheme are made more real than they were under previous Governments. Under the new scheme a worker receiving less than £30 a week will, in return for increased contributions, get substantially improved benefits.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal Bench agree that the flat-rate contribution is intolerable? In view of that, why does

he not scrap it and go over to an earnings-related contribution?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman set up an inquiry into the reasons for earlier retirement and increased sickness absenteeism to see whether there is a way to combat social tension?

Mr. Crossman: On the first question, all I can say is that that is the precise purpose of the major scheme of national superannuation which we shall be introducing in our big Bill next Session. That will totally abolish all flat-rate contributions and the stamp, but we cannot do that this time. This is an up-rating in which we are seeking to move towards an earnings-related scheme as far as we can within the existing framework.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures for sickness. I think that we all ought to look at these figures with great care. During the last two years there has been a considerable increase in sickness benefit, and special inquiries are now under way. We must all take seriously an increase of that kind.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully again the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the effect on supplementary benefit recipients, in that apparently they are only receiving half the increase? We accept my right hon. Friend's argument that the instalment system gives them over a period the full increase, but as this is the sector of greatest need, will he consider perhaps on this occasion giving them the full increase?

Mr. Crossman: This is a very difficult question. We have a choice. Either we bring the two rates together over 24 months, in which case leap-frogging does not occur, or—and I find this preferable—we conduct, in the cases of greatest need, virtually an annual review to ensure that those hardest hit do not suffer through increases in the cost of living. The disadvantage of the annual supplementary review and the biennial national insurance review is apparently the leap-frogging.

Sir Hamar Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage new contributions from the self-employed? As he is guaranteeing values, does he envisage that


the Exchequer contribution percentage will go up every year?

Mr. Crossman: There is no change in the method of contribution paid by the self-employed or in the Exchequer contribution which is 18 per cent. of the total including the graduated element and not only the flat-rate.

Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever the Government's decision on the method of raising money to meet this necessary increase sections of the House would have found fault? His decision to keep the flat-rate increase down to 1s, will be welcomed by several million people who earn less than £18 a week and by all of those who are concerned for their particular problems. Will he take the opportunity in the Bill to make a further easement in the earnings rule for retirement pensioners?

Mr. Crossman: We intend to arrange that the first £7 10s. of earnings will not lead to any reduction of pension. That is a considerable improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the lower-paid workers. The figures here are encouraging. Six million workers earning under £18 a week will only pay 1s. a week extra and another 2 million will only be paying 2s. 6d. a week extra. Thus 8 million workers will be paying 2s. 6d. a week extra or less. We have succeeded here in taking the burden off the backs of those who have borne it for too long.

Mr. Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman has said remarkably little about the employers' contributions. How great an additional burden on industry will the Bill place? Secondly, when making his inquiry into the dramatic increase in sickness benefit over the last two years, will he make a similar inquiry into the dramatic increase in unemployment benefit?

Mr. Crossman: The employers' contributions will be 50–50 with the employees' contributions, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. They will be exactly the same rates. The hon. Gentleman will find them all in the White Paper. I am prepared to institute an inquiry into unemployment as well, but it is not as

grave or mysterious a problem as that of sickness benefit.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In view of the animus injected into these exchanges by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), has my right hon. Friend been able to discover how the Opposition would be able to pay for the increased benefits? Indeed, can he tell us whether, as far as he knows, the Opposition are in favour of these increased benefits or whether their interest is merely cynical?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend can draw his own conclusions from the Opposition's attitude. It is a big assumption to believe that the increases we made in 1964–65 would have been made by the Opposition; and, secondly, that they would also have made the move to earnings-related unemployment and sickness benefit, which has added substantially to the bill. It is because of these factors that we are paying an increased burden, but we are getting better value for money than has ever been paid in the history of the British people.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this important change to graduated contributions is, in effect, a form of income tax and ought to be called such? Does not he also agree that the cost of these benefits, which hon. Members on both sides find inadequate in many cases, is so high that we should move from the system of giving flat-rate increases of this sort to giving more substantial increases to those who really need them?

Mr. Crossman: Such questions are often put to me at Question Time and hardly relate to the uprating today. It is a great mistake, however, to assume that this is equivalent to an increase in income tax. To confirm that, the hon. Gentleman should ask the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who first introduced graduated contributions and certainly did not regard them as income tax, nor, indeed, the benefit as unimportant.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)? This is a very important question. Many old-age pensioners, while welcoming the scheme, as we do, nevertheless feel cheated. I ask my right hon.


Friend to have another look at the question of supplementary benefit, which is a very important one for these people.

Mr. Crossman: Of course I will consider it, but my hon. Friend must face the fact that the choice is between keeping the rates going regularly and altering them only once in two years. If we alter the supplementary benefit rate before we alter the national insurance rate and keep on moving it ahead, the net result will be an ever wider gap between supplementary benefit and the national insurance pension.

Mr. Younger: What is the estimate of the total cost of the employers' contributions to industry? How much of this will be passed on to the public in the form of increased prices?

Mr. Crossman: Hon. Members must make their own estimates about increased prices. One of the reasons I was against putting the burden on the employers as against making it equal between employers and employees was that I did not want to see an increase in prices.

Mr. Hooley: Will the Bill include provision for death grant in respect of handicapped and other people who cannot qualify under normal contribution arrangements?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad to say that we have been able to make one minor modification with regard to death grant. In future, it will be paid, on the insurance of close relatives, for handicapped people who have never been able to support themselves. This is a cause which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES





Present Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Ordinary Scale


(a) Husband and wife
…
…
7
9
0
7
17
0


(b) Single householder
…
…
4
11
0
4
16
0


(c) Any other person aged:—


(i) not less than 21 years
…
…
3
14
0
3
17
0


(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years
…
…
3
1
0
3
4
0


(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years
…
…
2
13
0
2
16
0


(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years
…
…
2
1
0
2
4
0


(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years
…
…
1
19
0
2
1
0


(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years
…
…
1
12
0
1
13
0


(vii) less than 5 years
…
…
1
7
0
1
8
0

have had at heart for years and I am glad that we are able to do something about it.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all parties, especially when in power, enjoy raising these benefits and wish to do so? Can he give an assurance that he has carried out actuarial calculations, that they were approved by the Treasury and perhaps by the I.M.F. and that this does not inject a purchasing power into the country greater than we can afford, with consequences on the balance of payments and prices? Will he now say what the cost will be to industry and what the effect will be on prices?

Mr. Crossman: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the White Paper and the Government Actuary's report, both of which give the calculations.

Mr. Woodburn: Can my right hon. Friend clarify something which seems to have left some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members? Is it the case that, if supplementary benefit and old-age pensions are increased at the same time, this deprives the supplementary beneficiary of the year in which he now gets half in advance?

Mr. Crossman: That is true. If we have an annual review the loss in the value of pension in the first year is something that we make up at the end of 12 months, whereas if there is a biennial review the loss is that much greater

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Blind Scale


(a) Husband and wife:—


(i) if one blind
…
…
8
13
6
9
2
0


(ii) if both blind
…
…
9
9
6
9
18
0


(b) Any other blind person aged:—


(i) not less than 21 years
…
…
5
15
6
6
1
0


(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years
…
…
4
1
0
4
4
0


(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years
…
…
3
9
0
3
12
0


(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years
…
…
2
1
0
2
4
0


(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years
…
…
1
19
0
2
1
0


(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years
…
…
1
12
0
1
13
0


(vii) less than 5 years
…
…
1
7
0
1
8
0


Notes:


(i) An allowance for rent is added to the above rates.


(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s. long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and to those of persons under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Christopher John Chataway, esquire, for Chichester.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2)

Bill to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 as to the rate or amount of contributions and benefit; to make further provision as to death grant under the National Insurance Act 1965, as to the assessment of disablement under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and, for purposes of those and certain other Acts, as to the introduction of a decimal currency; to make temporary provision consequential on or related to the matters aforesaid; and for other purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Cross-man; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Castle, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Thomas, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Norman Pentland, and Mr. Julian Snow; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

LABELLING OF CIGARETTE PACKETS

4.10 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the labelling of cigarette packets in such a way as to inform the public of the health hazards resulting from cigarette smoking.
Last year in Great Britain 32,010 men and women died as a result of lung cancer. This is a disease which is largely preventable. A great majority of these deaths occured because these people were smoking cigarettes, and in many cases smoking cigarettes heavily. This is the greatest public health problem, in my view, that this country has ever had to face. We have a steadily rising toll year by year from diseases that are linked to cigarette smoking.
In my Bill I am attempting to produce at least one more weapon in the fight against these diseases. Warning notices printed on the cigarette packets that are sold in the country will bring home to at least some of those smoking cigarettes the personal risks that they are running. The magnitude of the problem we face is almost beyond comprehension. Indeed, a sense of apathy and helplessness seems to have arisen. People seem to be hypnotised into inactivity by the size of the problem—32,000 people every year, 88 men and women dying of lung cancer alone, every day of the week, every week of the month every month of the year.
This would mean, for each Member of the House, that we lose 50 of our constituents from this cause in a year, one constituent every week. Five times as many people are killed by lung cancer as are killed on the roads in Britain today. These are not old men and women; on average, they are dying 13 to 14 years earlier than they would from other causes, many of them in the prime of life. It is not only cancer which cigarettes cause, but diseases like bronchitis, heart diseases and gastric troubles. There must be few of us in this House who do not know of friends or relatives or of political colleagues whose lives have been cut short as a result of cigarette smoking.
I want, in my Bill, to label cigarette packets with warning notices in an attempt to give a personal direct warning to the individual. There is no doubt that the great majority of people accept that there is a health risk from smoking cigarettes, but hardly anyone accepts that it applies to him or her personally. It is always the other man or the other woman who will run into trouble. I want to label cigarette packets because this is the sort of area that has not so far been covered by Government expressions of intentions to legislate and it is something where private Members can play a part.
The Government are committed to introduce legislation to take powers to ban cigarette coupons and to control or ban other advertising. They are empowering themselves to forbid or limit certain sorts of advertisements and to limit expenditure on the advertising of cigarettes. All of this I welcome. To me, it is a tragedy that nothing has been done since the Government announced their intentions in October, 1967. The tragedy is felt particularly by the families of the 50,000 men and women who have died of those diseases since the Government expressed their intention to bring in legislation.
In my Bill I propose to label cigarettes in a direct and unambiguous way, with wording that is easily understandable. I propose that cigarette packets should be labelled thus:
Danger. These cigarettes can harm your health. Cigarettes are known to cause lung cancer, bronchitis and heart disease.
I also want the Bill to give to the Minister responsible the power to vary the wording from time to time. For example, perhaps we could consider whether the tar content of the various tobaccos used in cigarettes should be described on the packets. We should certainly seriously consider whether the weight of the tobacco in the cigarettes should not also be on the outside of the packet.
In my Bill I want to make this provision for the whole of the United Kingdom and I want the Bill, when it comes into force, to be enforced for a period of five years to give us a reasonable length of time to see what effect the proposal will have. I want to have a waiting period of six months, an interval of six months

after the Measure is passed and before it comes into force to give the industry time to set up the machinery and the printing, and so on.
The question that is inevitably asked is: what effect would a proposal like this, if it were introduced, have? We have to be frank—we do not know. The only experience that we can quote from is that of the Americans. It is certainly true to say that neither my Bill nor the other public health education measures that have been introduced in America, or, for that matter, in this country, have had any dramatic effect on cigarette consumption. Nevertheless, in 1968 cigarette consumption fell in the United States for only the second year in the last 15 to 20 years.
I believe that it fell—and this is the opinion of authorities in America—because of the combined propaganda offensive that has been launched in that country. One element in this offensive is the labelling of cigarette packets with warning notices, although I feel that the American warning notice is a rather innocuous one and not as strong as that which I am proposing. It is certainly impossible for anyone to deny that this may well have had a beneficial effect and it is inconceivable that the sort of warning notice that I am talking about could have any harmful effect.
The other set of objections raised are that there are practical difficulties to do with the printing of notices on the outside of packets and the cost involved. I do not accept this. Many of the cigarette producers are today printing warning notices on the outside of the packets of cigarettes that they are exporting to the United States. I ask leave to bring in the Bill because I believe that it can have a significant effect on the most dangerous and deadly form of addiction in Britain today. I ask leave to bring in the Bill so that Parliament can commit itself on this issue and signify to the Government and the country its very great and real concern at the enormous misery, suffering and death that is caused in Britain today by smoking cigarettes.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Cooke: Yes.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Shame.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member says "Shame" because I rise to oppose the Motion. I would like to explain my position straight away. I am a nonsmoker, an anti-smoker and I have a great deal of sympathy with the undoubtedly pure motives of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody).
The House would be wrong to give the hon. Member leave to bring in the Bill, although I suppose that it does not make much difference one way or the other now, from the point of view of his chances of success, because he has brought in his Bill very late in the Session. This must be to some extent a publicity opportunity for the views he holds. I believe that the House would be wrong to associate itself, to wholly commit itself to a scheme which appears to deal only with part of the problem.
The hon. Member particularly mentions cigarettes, and gave details of what he wants printed on the cigarette packet. He could easily have told us what he thought about the other forms of tobacco, and I wonder why he did not. We are told that pipes and cigars are less noxious to smokers and that possibly the risks of getting some of the ailments which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are smaller, but surely these instruments of torture—as they are to the non-smoker—the pipe and the cigar, are far more noxious for those who do not want the benefit of the activities of the smoker. The hon. Gentleman should have brought that within the scope of his proposed Bill.
I am not entirely happy about the wording which he proposes to put on the cigarette packet. We should strive to see that people do not indulge in this stimulus to excess—[Interruption.] I know that we must be careful to stick within the rules, but it is the excessive use of these stimulants which is generally accepted to

be dangerous to the users. They are more dangerous to some people than to others, and the individual's doctor might know more about it than someone who laid down the printing on a packet.
The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the immense amount of time, money and energy which is put into research into the effects, good and bad, of tobacco. I hold no brief for the tobacco companies, but I took the trouble to find out how much was spent on research. A total of £1 million is invested in the Tobacco Research Council's laboratories. £1 million a year is spent on research through the Council and a further £1 million a year in companies' own laboratories or on work which the companies support outside. A good quarter of this work is research into lung cancer in particular. Hardly any research projects which ask for assistance are turned down, and, if they are, it is on scientific and not financial grounds.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the undoubted danger of tobacco stimulants, but he has not painted the whole picture and it would be wrong for the House to attach undue significance to his speech. It would be utterly pointless to give him leave to introduce a Bill which could not possibly succeed this Session.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. John Dunwoody, Mr. John Ellis, Sir G Nabarro, Mr. Pavitt, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Dr. Winstanley.

LABELLING OF CIGARETTE PACKETS

Bill to provide for the labelling of cigarette packets in such a way as to inform the public of the health hazards resulting from cigarette smoking, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATON (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up my revised selection of Amendments. The House will see that I have added two starred Amendments, Nos. 57 and 58, which will be taken together at the appropriate time.

Clause 10

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 31, leave out 'and a psychological examination'.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time, Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'either or both of the examinations' and insert 'that examination'; and Amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'either or both of the examinations' and insert 'the medical examination'.
These three Amendments make an improvement in the new Section 64 of the 1962 Act. They would remove the right of a parent to be present during a psychological examination when that is part of an education authority's ascertainment procedure. It was generally felt in Committee that there were disadvantages to writing into the Bill the right of a parent to be present at a psychological, as distinct from a medical, examination, and I undertook to make the appropriate Amendment.

Mr. John Brewis: As it was I who moved similar Amendments in Committee, I should like to thank the Under-Secretary for accepting them in principle and producing these Amendments. We all want parents to take as large a part as possible in the examination with which we are dealing, so it is entirely right that they should be entitled to attend any medical examination which is necessary. But somewhat different considerations apply to the psychological examination.
This is a science which is increasing in importance in the ascertainment of handicaps to children, and some of the tests of educational psychologists involve putting children in unfamiliar surroundings to see their reactions. It may, therefore, be contrary to the intentions if parents can communicate to the children their anxiety or change the atmosphere of the tests. There is no doubt that when this is not the case, we should all wish parents to be present.
I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for making the position clear and, probably, making the examinations occasionally more effective because parents are not present.

Mr. John Rankin: I agree completely with the Under-Secretary and with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), but while we are removing the reference to the psychological examination in subsection (2) it will apparently be retained in three places in subsection (1). Could my hon. Friend make that clear?

Mr. Millan: There is no question of our removing the psychological examination. We are concerned with the question of the parents' presence at that examination. The parent will be entitled to be present at a medical examination but not statutorily entitled to be present at a psychological examination. There may be circumstances in which no harm would be done if the parent were present and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening, but he will not have a statutory right to be present as he has for a medical examination. I have made the reason for that clear, as has the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis).

Mr. Ian MacArthur: We greatly appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his undertaking in Committee, when we dealt with a difficult problem, the delicate relationship between parents and child in these circumstances. I am certain that the Amendment is a marked improvement which shows proper care for this relationship, and that the House should accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 11, in page 10, line 33, leave out "either or both of the examinations"and insert "that examination".

No. 12, in page 11, line 9, leave out "either or both of the examinations" and insert "the medical examination",—[Mr. Millan.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in line 34, leave out from 'thereafter' to end of line 6 on page 14 and insert:
'either—

(i) revoke the said decision, in which case they shall forthwith give to the parent of the child notice in writing of its revocation, and their duty to ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education shall thereupon cease; or
(ii) determine not to revoke the decision, in which case, if either the review was carried out in pursuance of a request made to them by the parent of the child by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above or the parent was invited, under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, to submit the child for medical and psychological examination in connection with the review, they shall forthwith give to the parent such notice of their determination as is mentioned in subsection (5) below; or
(iii) subject to subsection (6) below, revoke the decision but decide that the child is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act and that a report to the local authority should be issued by them under section 66B of this Act with respect to the child.'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the following Amendments: Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 54.

Mr. Millan: Although these Amendments are long, I hope that hon. Members will not find them difficult to understand. They introduce a specific procedure for the transfer of children already receiving special education who, as a result of a review under Section 66, are found to be suffering from a disability making them unsuitable for special education to the category of children unsuitable for education.
The procedure introduced in the new Section 66 requires an education authority to keep under review cases in which it has decided that a child requires special education. The main purpose of reviews is to let authorities consider from time to time whether children are ready

to return to ordinary education or whether they should, in their own interests, continue to receive special education.
There are cases in which the original decision may later turn out to have been optimistic. Indeed, there is a good deal to be said—education authorities often take this view—for giving a child a chance, first of all, in a special school before deciding that he is unsuitable for special education, thereby making the matter the responsibility of the health authority and, subsequently, of the social work authority.
While the Clause as drafted sets out the detail of the procedure in ascertainment and review cases, we believe, after considering the matter, that it does not cater adequately for the type of case where, during a review of a child's circumstances, it is decided that he should be transferred from the education authority.
As the Bill stands, if that decision were made, it would be necessary to go through the normal ascertainment procedure for the child who, it is decided, is unsuitable for education, and that would require another medical and psychological examination, which would be undesirable and unduly distressing to the child and his parents. It is, therefore, necessary to have a bridging procedure, and this is provided for as one of the major aims of the Amendment.
Amendment No. 13, which amends Section 66(4), makes it clear that an education authority must make one of three kinds of determination at the end of a review. The first may be a revocation of the decision that the child should receive special education. The second may be a decision that a child should continue to receive special education. The third is a new kind of determination. Subject to certain conditions, it may be a determination deciding that the child should be reported to the local authority as unsuitable for education and revoking the original decision that the child requires special education.
Amendment No. 14 is a minor and consequential proposal.
Amendment No. 15 limits the circumstances in which a child ascertained as requiring special education can be reported to the local authority. The first limitation is that the child should be


over the age of two. This is consistent with earlier parts of the provision. The second is that the review should have been initiated by the education authority. This is to protect parents who may request a review and subsequently find that it has, from their point of view, had an adverse result.
That cannot happen under this provision, for the review would have to be initiated not by a parent but by an education authority, so that parents need not feel inhibited in asking for a review in the fear that it might have an adverse result. The third condition is that the child should have undergone a medical and psychological examination.
Amendment No. 15 also sets out a new subsection (7) to Section 66, definining "local authority" for the purpose of the Section. This replaces a definition which appears at another point in the Bill. Because of the Amendments which we are making, it is more appropriate to have this definition at this point in the Bill.
Amendment No. 16 is another linking proposal which I need not explain in detail.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 concern Section 66B in regard to ascertainment by a local authority of children suffering from disabilities so serious as to make them unsuitable for any kind of education or training. As it stood, the Section did not set out with sufficient precision and detail the decisions which the Secretary of State might reach on any such reference or of the consequences for the local education authority and the child of each such decision. Nor did it, for example, provide for a parent to obtain from the education authority a statement of the reasons for its decision, information which some parents might wish to consider before deciding to refer their children's cases to the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, therefore, provide a considerable elaboration of this provision, but they do so specifically with the aim, first, of making the Section clear and, secondly, of setting out parental rights more clearly than is the position under the existing draft. Amendment No. 17 requires an authority to inform the parent of his rights to require the authority to issue a statement containing the

reasons for its decision in relation to the child.
Amendment No. 18 adds six new subsections (3) to (8), to Section 66B. The new subsection (3) provides for the ascertainment of a statement of reasons, if required by the parent. Subsection (4) sets out the decisions which the Secretary of State may reach on any appeal. Subsection (5) requires an authority to comply with a direction to report the child under subsection (4)(a).
Subsection (6) provides that where the Secretary of State overturns a decision, made by an authority following a review, that a child previously ascertained as requiring special education has become unsuitable for education, the authority must continue to ensure that any education provided by it is special education. In other words, the child reverts to the position that he is suitable for special education.
The new subsection (7) places a duty on an authority to provide special education for a child not previously ascertained as requiring special education and in respect of whom the Secretary of State substitutes under subsection (4) a decision that he requires special education for the decision that he should be reported. The new subsection (8) requires an authority to give the parent notice in writing of any decision made by the Secretary of State and of the effect of that decision.
Amendment No. 54 inserts a new paragraph to define "local authority" for the purpose of paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, which is a transitional Schedule.
As I said at the outset, these Amendments are rather elaborate. However, if they are read carefully they are not too difficult to follow. They represent a considerable improvement in the clarity of this part of the Bill, which is necessarily somewhat long and involved. They also give parental rights a good deal more clearly than under the existing draft. I felt in Committee, when this part of the Bill was discussed, that we had not got the matter quite right. These Amendments make for greater clarity.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I thank the Minister for his statement, but I do so with some reservation because this is a quite elaborate addition to


make to the Bill at this stage. There is material here that would much more appropriately have been dealt with in the Standing Committee. However, having sounded that note of some asperity, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
We all meet these very difficult, worrying and often embarrassing cases of the child of 7, 8 or 9 years in a special school, for whom that school can do nothing. We also meet instances where a great improvement has resulted, and where there is a case for a transfer back to the normal school system. What the Minister seeks to do here is appropriate, but I wish to put to him three specific questions.
First, what does the Minister intend under Amendment No. 15 in relation to the determination of children from the ages of 2 to 5? We are here discussing Scottish education, but it also touches on the whole field of the social services and social work in Scotland. The same Amendments states:
(7) In this section and in sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 66E of this Act the expression local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.…
Can we be assured that education authorities are in touch with and working in harmony with the social work departments now being set up, and do we know where the responsibility lies as between social work and education? I feel that what the Amendment refers to is far more appropriate to social work than to education proper.
Thirdly, the proposed subsection (8) in Amendment No. 18 refers to parents getting notice in writing of any decision. Can we be assured that there will be long, full, frank but confidential discussions with the parents, and not merely a communication in writing? This is a subject which agonises parents, and agonises all of us who have to talk to parents about it. We want to be sure that there will be full discussion with the parents, as well as there being this simple and rather heartless sounding statement about giving notice in writing of the decision.

Mr. George Younger: Having looked at these Amendments as well as I could in the time available, I agree

that they should make a considerable improvement in the methods of dealing with these difficult cases. The Minister has told us that if the result of a review is adverse, it cannot be acted upon detrimentally to the child unless the review has first been requested by the local authority. Is there anything to prevent such a review taking place at the request of the parent? If the result of that review is adverse in the view of the parents, I suppose that there is nothing to prevent the local authority then immediately going through the necessary procedure by itself requesting a review.
4.45 p.m.
I also welcome the provision for parents being absolutely certain of getting notice of the decision. No aspect is more important than the absolute certainty in the minds of parents that they will get written reasons. A previous Clause provides that whether or not a local authority wants a psychological examination to be made, parents may request such an examination. In the new provisions and procedures envisaged by these Amendments I do not find it specifically stated that parents may have an expert in child psychology, for instance, present at the examination if they so wish.
Can this be done either under this Measure or under the previous enactment? Further, in the event of parents being poor—perhaps living on supplementary benefits—can they be assisted in having such psychological advice at their elbow during the examination?

Miss Harvie Anderson: Amendment No. 13 provides that a parent shall be given notice in writing of the revocation of the decision. It is very difficult for those of us who were not members of the Standing Committee to take up Committee points in some detail now, but my experience is that the real trouble starts when the decision is that the child shall not be educated. I am not quite clear whether this Amendment puts that matter right. The parents want to know the reason: is it the intention that they shall be given the reason? The parents' reaction is always the same. "Why should the child's education stop at this point?".
I am not very clear whether the Amendment means that when the parents


are given written notice of the revocation they are also given the reason for the revocation. The difficulty does not arise when the decision is to continue the education of the child. It nearly always arises in cases where the education is to stop.
Amendment No. 15 provides that the child must have attained the age of two years at the date of determination, but what happens before that age? I have had correspondence with the Minister of State on this point, relating to a difficult case that has caused considerable anxiety in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman looks as though he knows that that anxiety continues. The local authority has set up a very elaborate arrangement which is presently operated by the health department, whereby ascertainment can begin at any age and continue to any age. At present, the health department clearly has a responsibility and I continue to believe that there is advantage in this arrangement. It means that the child can be considered appropriate at whatever age it may be.
Most of us who have experience of local authority work know that in cases of children brought into care this is nearly always done at an age of a few months because there arises at that age the question of whether or not a child will prove suitable for adoption. The ascertainment age which is really important is an age of weeks or months rather than years. At present, this is a continuous process under the same authority and many medical officers of health support this strongly.
In the Bill we say what is to happen when the child reaches the age of 2, but we leave to other legislation what is to happen before that age. We are leaving a fairly wide opportunity for difficulties to arise within the administrative arrangements of the authority. I should, therefore, be glad if the Under-Secretary would explain what is to happen before the age of 2 and whether the process of ascertainment will be a continuous one which will be satisfactory from an administration point of view.
There is probably an explanation in the Social Work (Scotland) Act, but three partners of an authority will have responsibility for something which is extremely important in relation to these children and which at present is done by one part

of the administration of a local authority. I am very unhappy about this Amendment unless we can have a definite explanation of the process. We should not put ourselves into the position of judging whether this is suitable administration to follow, but rather into the position of the parent because when children are taken into care the parent has a particular interest throughout. Parents will be confused unless there is one person to whom they can refer.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give a reassurance on Amendment No. 13, with reference to subsection (1), and Amendment No. 15, with reference to subsection (6)(a).

Mr. Hector Monro: The Under-Secretary will remember that in Committee we had a very instructive and informative debate on the problem of children who were either mentally handicapped or psychiatrically sick. We are all doing our best for the parents of such children who in most cases are in an unfortunate position. One problem which worried us most was the facilities available for treating these children.
When the Under-Secretary replies, can he say a little more about whether there has been further development since March in the facilities he thinks could be made available in the next few years? We all agree that, generally, while there may be sufficient places for mentally retarded children throughout Scotland, those facilities are not always exactly where they are wanted, particularly for children in rural areas who have the difficulty of being transported daily to those facilities.
More seriously, we were worried about the facilities for children who are psychiatrically sick and who, while not strictly being educated by a local authority, are being educated under the auspices of a hospital board. They do not strictly come within the limits of the Education (Scotland) Bill, but we are in a position of co-ordinating all three services if we include, as we must the social work services which will be coming into play in Scotland more and more as the year goes by and will be at a most important level in 12 months' time.
There is a very critical balance question for the parent, and, of course, for


the medical officers, as to when a child should be sent to a hospital or can be educated through local authority facilities. This balance would be made easier in many ways if there were adequate facilities for both classes of child. This is something we are all most concerned about. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us a little more of his thinking on how facilities will be available in the next few years.

Mr. Millan: I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said about facilities being extremely important. He will appreciate, however, that they are not particularly relevant to this series of Amendments. The statutory framework for social work authority facilities was laid down in the Act passed last year. On the question of education in hospital, there is a sub-committee of the Scottish Standing Medical Advisory Committee looking into various matters of which this forms a part. I am well aware of this problem which is something I am anxious to keep under review and we are looking into it at this time, although strictly speaking these are not matters dealt with by these Amendments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) made a point about the complexity of these Amendments and I accept that. They have been on the Notice Paper for a rather long time and I hope that most hon. Members have been able to study and understand them. I wrote to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) as long ago as 29th April explaining what I was trying to do with this series of Amendments. I hope that he found the letter completely intelligible. He has not got in touch with me since then.

Mr. MacArthur: I thank the Under-Secretary very much for his letter, which was, indeed, helpful. He will appreciate that these are complicated Amendments. Despite his helpful letter, there were still a number of points about which we had to ask. I am nevertheless, much obliged to him for writing to me.

Mr. Millan: I accept that the Amendments are difficult and I shall try to answer the points which have been raised about them.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for Pollok was about the limitation to children of 2 years and over. This was also raised by the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). There may be a slight misunderstanding here. We are dealing with statutory ascertainment. It would be undesirable, and certainly would be resented by parents, if even before the age of 2 a child could be statutorily ascertained as unsuitable for educational training. That would be very hurtful and quite unnecessary.
It is important that the health authority and the social work authority, or whatever authority is responsible, should make provision for children of every age. There is no limitation on that. The social work authority, which will be providing care facilities, will have an obligation for dealing with children however young, just as the medical services have an obligation for dealing with physical and other disabilities whatever age the child may be. It would be wrong statutorily to ascertain a child before 2 as being unsuitable for education or training. That is why we do not do so in subsection (6) of the Clause. But I agree absolutely that the sooner one discovers the disability of any child and begins to find out whether one can put it right medically or in whatever way may be available, and the sooner we provide facilities for putting it right, the better it will be for the child and its parents.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In the case of adoption—and I am thinking of children under care—is it not sometimes necessary to have statutory ascertainment? Suppose that somebody wants to adopt a very attractive child and there is good reason why the child should not be adopted without the prospective parents knowing that it is not likely to be educable. In such cases I thought that it was necessary to have statutory ascertainment so that it might be presented to the prospective parents as the only valid evidence that the child was likely to be ineducable.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I should not like to answer off the cuff a point about the adoption law, which is very complicated. We are not very happy with it and we are at present considering whether it should be reviewed. But I should be


very surprised if, in the adoption legislation, there were anything approaching the statutory ascertainment procedure with which we are dealing. From the point of the Bill, it is not necessary to follow the statutory ascertainment procedure for adoption purposes. I should have to consider specifically what is said in the adoption legislation.
On the second point which the hon. Gentleman raised, after the social work departments are set up on 17th November this year the local authority will be responsible for social work purposes. But there are transitional arrangements to enable the local health authority to act in the comparatively short period between the implementation of the Bill and the operation of the social work departments in November this year. I know from my experience of local authorities that they are well aware of the need for their social work departments to co-ordinate their activities and to liaise with education departments and other departments of the local authority.
The third point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the notice in writing. He was concerned that this might come as a bolt from the blue to the parent if there were no preliminary consultation. But Section 66B provides that before the education authority does anything it will consider
in accordance with section 65(1) of this Act, the advice and any reports or other information received by them with respect to any child …
Under Clause 65(1), the local authority, before it acts, must take account of the views of the parent. There is, therefore, no question of the authority acting arbitrarily. It must take account of all the reports and information it is able to obtain and of the views of the parents before making an ascertainment decision. There must, therefore, be preliminary consultation before a decision is made.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked whether the local authority, not having taken the initiative in the review but having decided that the child should be ascertained as unsuitable for education, could act after the review carried out by the parents. That is so under the Bill because, under Section 66, the education authority can act when it thinks it "expedient". But we must

beware of making this sound very formal and legalistic and must take account of the fact that in a situation of this kind the relationship between the education authority and the parents should be such as to enable them to discuss matters relating to the child frankly and should not depend on the legalistic arrangements in the Bill. The legal arrangements basically are for the protection of the parent and the child.
The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the authorities would always be bound to give reasons. The answer is "No". The parent can request reasons. There is a good explanation for this provision. It may be very distressing in certain cases for the local authority, at the beginning of the ascertainment, to have to give the medical and other reasons why it has decided that a child is unsuitable for education or training. It is not right that it should be able to withhold that information from the parent, but in dealing with very difficult cases it is better that the parent should be told that he can ask for the reasons. The reasons will not necessarily be given unless he asks for them. Whenever the parent wishes the reasons to be given, there can be no question of the authority withholding them from him.
I turn to the point about the parent having advice from his own expert. Under Section 65(1) the education authority must take account of
any other reports or information which they are able to obtain with respect to the ability or aptitude of the child".
Therefore, if the parent has a medical adviser, or any other adviser, who has a view about the child's capabilities, it is proper for the parent to ensure that that view is put in the hands of the education authority which must take it into account—it need not necessarily accept it—before reaching its decision. All these decisions are subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. Therefore, my right hon. Friend would have regard to all the views expressed about the child.
The question of an independent expert being present at an examination is more difficult. This would be basically at the discretion of the local authority. I can visualise considerable difficulties arising in medical protocol, if nothing else, in laying this down statutorily, but there is nothing to prevent it from happening at the discretion of the local authority. The


views of an independent adviser, medical or otherwise, must be taken into account.
I hope that I have answered the points which have been raised. I think that it is generally accepted that the Amendments improve the Clause.

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but there is perhaps one small point which he has overlooked. What is the position if a parent finds that he can get the advice which he feels necessary only by paying for it?

Mr. Millan: I doubt whether that situation is ever likely to arise. A more common occurrence would be this. There may be a dispute between the authority's medical adviser and the parents' medical adviser. In all the circumstances that I can think of, that would be possible under the National Health Service. I can think of one case in which this arose. The consultant concerned was a Health Service consultant. There is no provision here for providing special medical arrangements outside the Health Service. This must come within the general compass of the Health Service.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 14, page 14, line 9, after 'shall', insert 'in writing and shall'.

Amendment No. 15, page 14, line 14 at end insert:
(6) An education authority shall not make, in relation to any child, a determination under paragraph (iii) of subsection (4) above unless—

(a) the child has attained the age of two years at the date of the determination, and
(b) the review was carried out in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, and
(c) the child has undergone a medical examination and a psychological examination in connection with the review.

(7) In this section and in sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 66E of this Act the expression 'local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
Provided that until section 1(4) of the said Act of 1968 comes into operation the expression 'local authority' shall mean a local health authority within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (including a joint committee or board constituted under section 20 of that Act).

Amendment No. 16, page 15, line 19, leave out from 'Act' to 'issue" in line 21 and insert:
(1A) Where an education authority decide as aforesaid in relation to any child, either

under subsection (1) above or under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, they shall, subject to the following provisions of this section,

Amendment No. 17, page 15, line 40, after 'section', insert:
to require the authority to issue to him a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, and of his right under those provisions'.

Amendment No. 18, page 16, leave out lines 4 to 14 and insert:
(3) Where an education authority have given notice to the parent of any child in pursuance of subsection (2) above, they shall, if so required by the parent within the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which the notice was served, issue to the parent a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, and whether or not such a statement is so required the parent may, if he is aggrieved by the decision, within the said period refer the case to the Secretary of State.
(4) On any reference under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State shall either—

(a) direct the education authority to issue to the local authority a report under this section with respect to the child in question; or
(b) refuse to direct the education authority to issue such a report; or
(c) in the case of a child who the education authority have decided under subsection (1) above is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act, refuse to direct the authority to issue such a report but substitute for that decision a decision that the child requires special education; or
(d) in the case of a child in relation to whom the education authority have decided as aforesaid under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, refuse to direct the authority to issue such a report but confirm their determination under that paragraph so far as relating to the revocation of the decision that the child requires special education.

(5) Where under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State directs an education authority to issue to the local authority a report under this section with respect to any child, the education authority shall forthwith comply with that direction.
(6) Where under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State refuses to direct an education authority to issue such a report with respect to any child, being a child who the authority have decided, under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act, the authority shall be deemed not to have revoked their decision that the child requires special education and shall continue to ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education.
(7) Where under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State substitutes for


any decision of an education authority in relation to any child a decision that the child requires special education, the authority shall be deemed to have decided under section 65(1) of this Act that the child requires special education and shall thereafter ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education.
(8) An education authority shall as soon as practicable give to the parent of any child notice in writing of any decision made by the Secretary of State in relation to that child on a reference under subsection (3) above and of the effect of that decision.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 21, leave out 'received by them' and insert:
'which they are able to obtain'.
The effect is to substitute the words
which they are able to obtain".
for the words "received by them" in the new Section 66C(4)(b). The present wording has a rather passive implication. In other words, it suggests that an authority would wait for reports to be received by it. We intend this to be a more active procedure.
In other parts of the Section we talk about the authority being able to obtain reports, which suggests that it must do so—and this takes up a point made in our last discussion—and must take the initiative in getting all the available advice and reports before making a decision about the child. We think that the original wording was unfortunate and the new wording will give a more active rôle to the authority and make it clear that it is expected to ask those concerned for the reports it needs for the ascertainment procedure.

Mr. Younger: I welcome both the Amendment and the way in which the Under-Secretary has moved it, because I am certain that making this a more positive instruction is important.
However, it raises one disturbing matter. I applaud this movement towards getting authorities more positively concerned with the problems which these special children present, but I am disturbed that there may not be sufficient qualified advisers available to local authorities even to play their present somewhat passive rôle and certainly not the more positive rôle which we hope they will have.
For instance, in a case brought to my notice not long ago, parents approached

a local authority with a view to getting the ascertainment process under way and in the course of three interviews over a period of three or four months they saw three different people. I do not remember the details, but I think that the first went somewhere else and the second went to another authority. I do not blame anyone for this but this is the sort of thing that concerns me.
I should like the Minister to address himself to the question whether, in his own Department, at any rate, sufficient adequate staff are available for local authorities to play the more positive rôle which we are rightly giving to them. If there are not sufficient available, and I believe that there are not, I hope that he will closely consider the reasons. Is it because they are not paid enough, or do they just not exist?
All the excellent provisions being written into the Bill, and all these excellent Amendments, will be of no value if there are not the qualified people on the spot to do the work. This is an important consideration and we should not allow the Amendment to pass without directing the Minister's attention to this problem, although I am sure that he will have already met it.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure who are these individuals of whom local authorities are said to be scarce. Authorities have medical officers of health to undertake medical examinations and virtually every authority employs at least one educational psychologist, while many employ more. Those who do not employ them directly, and one or two smaller authorities may not do so, will certainly have access to them from other authorities by arrangement. Even in big authorities employing several medical officers of health reports may be needed from medical specialists not employed by the authority, but that is perfectly possible and is done under the present legislation.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that after November educational psychologists will come from an authority's social work department?

Mr. Millan: No, they will not. They will remain employed by education authorities. Certain arrangements are made for combining premises for certain assessment purposes connected with child guidance, but educational psychologists


will continue to be employed by education authorities.
5.15 p.m.
I am not aware of general difficulties. Where appropriate, medical authorities will be able to draw on the resources of the whole of the National Health Service A clinical psychologist would also be able to do so. The hon. Member may have information about individual cases and I should be glad to look into it, but my impression is that this is not an important difficulty, remembering that those authorities with small staffs, because they themselves are small, will necessarily be dealing with only a few cases in a year and able to get outside advice.

Miss Harvie Anderson: This takes me back to my original point, that ascertainment is not necessarily something which occurs at one interview. I have in mind the work of Dr. Isabel Mair, who is well known in Scotland for her excellent work in dealing with the children we are discussing. She has had great success in the process of ascertainment, but that is a process undertaken not in one interview, or two, or sometimes even in one year. Somehow we have to plan for a continuing process being available for parents so that they know to whom to turn and who is a link among the departments with a degree of responsibility.
Since he last replied to me, I have written the Under-Secretary a letter which, I hope, he will get tomorrow. I am still not very happy about this. I do not think that it is right to say that just one person will be able to finish this process at one interview. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has raised a matter of extreme importance.

Mr. Millan: I did not say that it would be necessarily one person who would be engaged on this work. A continuing review is precisely what the Clause provides for the first time. For the first time we are placing on authorities an obligation to keep children under regular review. Previously, once the ascertainment procedure had taken place, no obligation was placed on the local authority to keep the case under regular review. That obligation is being imposed for the first time and I think that we all agree that it should be imposed.

However, I am not aware that this will impose strains on an education authority's medical resources or on the educational psychologist.
I am not saying that local authorities could not employ more staff in this way. I dare say that authorities generally could employ more educational psychologists. This is a service which has been considerably built up in recent years. But it should not be by any means impossible for local authorities to do the job for these children which we are now imposing on them, and the authorities are happy to accept these provisions.

Mr. Younger: I welcome what the Under-Secretary is trying to do. All I ask him to do is to undertake to look closely behind the paper figures and the educational psychologists when he may find that, because of the burden of work, or frequent changes of personnel, there is often not the continuity of personal attention and skill which we all think should be directed to these cases. He will satisfy me if he will say that he will look carefully into this.

Mr. Millan: One cannot guarantee in any local authority service that there will be continuity of staff over a period of years, for that depends on a number of factors, including the propensities of individual members of the staff themselves. But the service is being built up and I do not think that we are placing any obligation on the local authorities under this Clause that they will not be able effectively to discharge. Having said that, I shall be happy if, in some of these activities, the local authorities are able to build up their staffs to an even greater extent than they have been able to over the last few years.

Mr. MacArthur: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Amendment appears to be fairly small in effect, simply replacing three words by six others. But it removes what I may describe as a rather casual tone from subsection (4)(b) and introduces a clear obligation on the local authority to search out the information required in reviewing the future of a child in its care.
It is not our purpose to obstruct the Amendment. We believe that it is an improvement on the present wording of the Clause and that it should be accepted.


At the same time, we must know what we are doing and what the extent of this additional responsibility is that we are placing on the local authority. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for raising the question of the possible strain on the present staff of local authorities which this proposal might impose.
We are dealing here with a critical part of a most important Clause of the Bill. This new provision sets out the procedure whereby the education authority shall review the decisions made by that authority about the special education of a child in need of care. There is a limitation early in the Clause on the extent to which a parent or a guardian may intervene in decisions of this kind. Quite rightly, the parent may not request the education authority to review a decision about a child in less than 12 months and requests thereafter may not be made more frequently than once in 12 months.
I believe that this is right because, if a child is to benefit from the special care provided by the education authority, it is reasonable to expect that it should be able to plan the care of the child properly and comprehensively over a fairly long period, and it is also right that it should not be disturbed unnecessarily by over-anxious parental inquiry more frequently than once a year. But, having said that, there is an obligation on the education authority to review the care given to the child if requested to do so under the terms set out at the beginning of the Clause.
The effect of the Amendment is that when a local education authority reviews the care given to the child in response to a request made under subsection (1) it should go out of its way to obtain reports or other information with respect to the child from the parent or the local authority or from
… any authority or body responsible for the management of an institution in which such child is under care …
or from any other person. Originally, the Clause did not place this requirement on the local education authority. The requirement, such as it was, was on these other bodies and people to communicate with the local education authority and to provide voluntarily the information

they felt necessary for the review to take place properly. Quite rightly, the subsection is now to be strengthened by the transference of this responsibility from people outside to the centre—the local education authority itself.
If the local education authority is to perform the function which it is going to be required by Statute to perform, it must have adequate staff. The obligation to be placed upon the local education authority by the Amendment is that it must try to obtain reports or other information about the child from a wide range of people. This will require a very wide research and investigation. I believe that the requirement is right but it will place a substantial strain on local authority staff.
I have spelt this out at length because we are facing uncertainties over the whole area of the management of local authorities in Scotland. We are awaiting publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. We go on waiting for it month after month. We do not know what shape local authorities will have in future but we do know that, in a recent major reform of local government, we have encountered certain difficulties to which we drew attention—the reform of local authority welfare services as a result of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.
We know now how difficult it is to staff the local authority social work departments adequately, how many posts are still vacant, and that directors of social work in some local authorities have still not been appointed because suitable candidates cannot be found. Many of us have grave doubts about whether the staffing of these social work departments is adequate to discharge the additional functions quite properly put on local authorities.

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not now straying into the realm of another Measure which has already been before the House and is now an Act of Parliament? Should we not devote our attention to the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) should leave it to the Chair to decide whether the rules of order are being maintained.

Mr. W. Baxter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to know what are the rules of order if we can now have a debate on the social services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is in order up to now.

Mr. MacArthur: I wish simply to emphasise the important matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. He questioned whether the present staffing of local authorities was adequate to perform this new function which is quite rightly to be placed upon them. I am simply calling attention to the difficulties being encountered in Scotland as a result of the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, which covers an equivalent activity in social welfare. I have stressed that the local authorities are going to find it hard to carry out their responsibilities properly because of the problem of staffing. I intervened earlier—

Mr. George Lawson: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us of any highly-skilled occupation for which there is no scarcity of staff?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is an extension of what I am saying. Of course there is a shortage of skill. There is a shortage of skill in social work and the hon. Gentleman has called attention to this. In Committee we pointed to the problems which would confront Scottish local authorities in that many of the social work departments would have to be staffed from the director of social work downwards.
We have already had practical experience in Scotland of the difficulties that can arise when additional requirements are placed on local authorities, requirements which all of us wish to see fulfilled properly, particularly in social work, where the local authority decision is absolutely critical to the future of the child in its care. It is for that reason that I hope that the Minister can give us more information about the load of work this will represent for the local education authorities.
Perhaps he can also tell us the extent to which social work departments will be

involved. I asked earlier whether the educational psychologist would be a member of the social work department and the Minister said that this would not be the case. As I understand the position, in every case the educational psychologist would be employed by the local education authority. Does this mean that we are to have two streams of educational psychologists, in the education authorities on the one hand and the social work department on the other? This is an important point. We support the Amendment and believe that it is right to lay such an obligation on the local authority. It would clearly be wrong if the requirement were to be a hollow one simply because local authority staffing in Scotland was not adequate to discharge the responsibility placed on it by the Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: So often the hon. Gentle man or his hon. Friends come along and tell the House that they support this that or the other, that this is an excellent step, these are the kind of moves that they would be making if they were the Government, yet there is always the kick in the pants. The hon. Gentleman always comes up with the objections which are usally far greater than his commendations. I can recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who is net here now but who has been present for most of the time, pressing for a long time—I tried to help her—for care to be taken of these handicapped children.
We were well aware that in our own area handicapped children were often hidden away. It was difficult to know how many there were. Here is a positive obligation with which we all agree and which we all welcome. We recognise that there are difficulties in finding staff and money but we want these things.

Mr. MacArthur: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman, whose views I greatly respect, should take this line. He acknowledges that we support the Amendment, but it would be quite wrong if we were to allow it to go through without asking certain fundamental questions about its effect. We are placing a statutory requirement on local authorities and it is right that we should have regard to what we are asking them to do, particularly in view of the difficulties we


are encountering following the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Lawson: All that I am saying is that listening to the hon. Gentleman it seems that he is always disagreeing always objecting. We recognise that there are these difficulties, and that local authorities are being told by Parliament that these difficulties have to be surmounted. Money requires to be found to train and to pay for these people. We should be honest on both sides and say that when we require certain things to be done we recognise that there must be expense. These proposals will cost money, but we are telling local authorities to get on with it because we think these things should be done. My criticism of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that they like to say they were in favour of all these desirable things, but on so many occasions they point to the difficulties and talk about squander-mongering and so on. If the hon. Gentleman tells me I am wrong and that he is sincerely backing the Government, I will take back half of what I have said—but only half.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have been making a great deal of unnecessary fuss about this. What we are doing is putting some words into the Clause as previous Amendments have put those words into two other Clauses. If all this hullabaloo is essential now why did we not have it earlier? We are replacing the words "received by them" with the words "they are able to obtain". If all these high-powered points are relevant I presume that they were raised in Committee. If they were, they would have been answered there. We are dealing with the review by an education authority of cases of children unsuitable for education. The question of the medical and psychological examinations is not covered by this at all, so from that point of view there was a certain measure of irrelevance.
That is covered by subsection (a) and since there are no Amendments to that I gather that the wording is adequate. Subsection (4) states:
In reviewing under subsection (1) above, their decision in relation to any child an education authority shall take into consideration—
(a)

That is the point about the medical and psychological examinations. Then it would go on:
(b) any reports and other information with respect to the child that they are able to obtain from the parents of the child …
This is the point that we are dealing with. I do not think that there will be any great difficulty about staff in respect of the parents of the child. The next point reads:
… or from the local authority, or from any authority or body responsible for the management of an institution in which the child is under care".
If the child is already in management and under care in an institution the person in charge of them is there and there is no great burden upon the staff or on anyone else.
Here we are improving the whole procedure for dealing with a very difficult situation, and we have enough important matters to deal with without dragging in things that are not of the importance some hon. Members seem to think. I sincerely hope that the House will accept the Amendment—

Mr. Younger: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are as good as anyone else's but by the tone he has adopted he has largely undone the sympathetic words spoken by his hon. Friend. Irrespective of what has been said or how it has been said, will he please accept that this is a genuine concern expressed about this problem? Whether it has been rightly expressed, will he please look sympathetically into it?

Mr. Ross: I should be delighted to explain to the hon. Gentleman that we are not placing any burden upon local authorities which they cannot carry in respect of this Amendment and the change that we are making in the words of the Bill. We are concerned with the change and whether we should put in these words. Putting them in will not have the effect that some people have suggested.
We have very important and sensitive matters to deal with, but let us keep our sense of proportion in the way that we address ourselves to them. Listening to some of the speeches, it is apparent that hon. Members opposite are tending to go overboard. I am happy with the change that we are making.


The new wording will not place a burden upon the local authorities which they are unable to carry out. What we are doing makes the wording in this Clause consistent with that in the two previous Clauses, which were agreed to in Amendments that the House accepted without objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 20, in line 44, at end insert 'or.'.—[Mr. Millan]

Clause 15

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING FURTHER EDUCATION

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 23, line 15, at end insert:
(5) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with the managers of any grant-aided college affected thereby and in making the regulations he shall have regard to any representations made by them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 58, in Clause 23, page 29, line 22, at beginning insert 'Subject to the provisions of section 15(5) of this Act'.

Mr. MacArthur: Perhaps I might open this debate by saying how grateful we are to Mr. Speaker for selecting the Amendment. It appears on the Order Paper as a starred Amendment, but the House will understand that it was presented a few days ago, during the Recess.
I would normally apologise for springing a starred Amendment on the Government with little notice, but I do not think that the Minister expects an apology on this occasion because the appearance of the Amendment is in response to a semi-invitation that he gave us in Committee. I mention that to remind my hon. Friends of the debates that we had on Clause 16, as it then was, and on Clause 24.
5.45 p.m.
In Committee, my hon. Friends and I were concerned about the strength of representations made to us by the central

institutions in Scotland on a major change proposed in the Bill. The position today is that any regulations made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Education Act are subject to the requirements set out in Section 144(2) of the 1962 Act. That provides that before the Secretary of State makes regulations under the Act he shall, not less than 40 days before making those regulations, cause a draft of the regulations to be published. The subsection goes on to put upon the Secretary of State the requirement to send a copy of any draft regulations to every education authority. It also requires the Secretary of State to have regard to any representation made by an education authority or by any person interested before he makes the regulations.
It is proposed elsewhere in the Bill to remove that provision. From the date of the passing of this Bill, the statutory position will be that no draft regulations will have to be published and no consultation will be required statutorily. Understandably, the central institutions are concerned about that.
When we debated Clauses 16 and 24 in Committee, we tried to raise the matter. Perhaps I might say in passing how much I regret the way in which the Minister treated our Amendments on that occasion. I said at the time that he was playing fast and loose with the Committee, and I repeat the charge. I trust that his approach to this Amendment will be a little more understanding, and I hope that he will be a little more courteous today than he was in dealing with our previous Amendments.
I accept at once that our earlier Amendments were regarded as defective. In Committee, we proposed that the whole subsection should be retained. We believed that the way to protect the consultation which has to take place at present would be by retaining the whole subsection. In reply, the Minister referred to the heavy and clumsy requirement of the subsection which was that not only was consultation required but that draft regulations should be published 40 days in advance, which he felt to be unnecessary.
I explained carefully to the Minister, though he refused to comprehend the point, that we were not so much concerned about the publication of draft


regulations as about the statutory requirement that consultations should take place. As a result, we have drafted a simpler Amendment which restricts the requirement to the need for consultation. The Minister will recognise that we are no longer proposing that draft regulations should be published 40 days in advance. All that we are asking the Minister to do is write into the Bill the statutory requirement that, before making any regulations under the Clause, the Secretary of State shall consult with the managers of any grant-aided college affected by them. We go on to put upon him the requirement that in making the regulations, he shall have regard to any representations made by them.
What could be more reasonable and simple? What could be more in accord with the declared intentions of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary? On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that it was his intention to consult with the central institutions and that there would be no question of steam-rolling them with regulations of which they had no previous notice. I noted with pleasure that a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech was devoted to this very Clause, and he gave a lot of emphasis to his intention to hold these consultations. I do not question the integrity of a statement of that kind.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I give a firm assurance now that no regulations will be made under this Clause with regard to the constitution and the general functions of the governing bodies of central institutions before the existing bodies have been fully consulted; and that goes for regulations made after the new bodies have been created, too."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 282.]
That was a straightforward and categorical assurance. The Under-Secretary of State said this:
I give the asurance again that, obviously, we shall consult all the bodies interested before we produce regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 631.]
I suppose the hon. Gentleman might say that we are being impertinent in proposing to the Government that an assurance given on Second Reading and again in Committee should be underwritten and confirmed by being written into the Bill.
I will in a moment give the hon. Gentleman irrefutable evidence why this requirement should be written into the Bill, but before doing so I would remind the House of the powers which are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State by Clause 15. The powers are enormous and, if the Amendment is not made, there will be no provision for consultation between the Secretary of State and the central institutions, whose total life and structure could be affected or removed completely by regulations introduced without consultation statutorily by the Secretary of State. Of course, I accept that the Secretary of State would have consultations. I do not question the honesty of the word given in the House and in Committee, but I see no reason why he should not continue his declaration of good-will and good faith by writing the requirement into the Bill.
Let us look at some of the powers which Clause 15 gives to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to grant-aided colleges, which include central institutions, covering the following matters. The regulations may make provision with regard to the constitution of the governing bodies of such colleges; in other words, the Secretary of State may lay down who should be a member of the governing body or who should be removed from that governing body.
The Secretary of State may produce regulations which prescribe the general functions to be discharged by the governing bodies and confer on them such powers as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient for the efficient discharge of those functions. This must mean that the Secretary of State may by regulation, without any statutory need for consultation, dictate to the colleges just how they should run their own affairs and what their functions should be.
The Clause goes on to state that by regulation the Secretary of State may prescribe the administrative and other arrangements to be adopted by the governing bodies for the purpose of discharging their functions. He may provide for the appointment, remuneration, discipline and dismissal by the governing bodies of administrative, teaching and other staff. So by regulation, without any statutory requirement to consult, the Secretary of


State may dictate to the colleges what their administrative and other arrangements should be. He may determine the appointment, the pay, the disciplining and the dismissal of teachers and administrators employed by the colleges.
By regulation, without any statutory requirement to consult, the Secretary of State may make provision with regard to fees and other payments to be made by students. The regulations may also provide for the constitutional bodies representative of students in attendance at such colleges, may confer on any such bodies such functions as may be prescribed in the regulations, and may, without any statutory requirement to consult, prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases of alleged breach of discipline by students in attendance at such colleges.
Subsection (2) provides that regulations may be introduced which establish institutions for the provision of any form of further education. To round it all off, under subsection (3) the Secretary of State may be regulation dissolve any grant-aided college.
These are terrifying powers. The Secretary of State has set himself up as the Pooh-Bah of grant-aided colleges. He may create them, he may kill them; he may determine who does and who does not sit on the governing bodies; he may decide how the teachers should be disciplined if they misbehave and he may even decide whether they have misbehaved at all. It is up to him to dictate the whole shape, content and life of the colleges, the people who administer them, the teachers who teach in them and the students who work in them. And if he does not like them, he can abolish the lot.
There is no requirement in the Clause or in the Bill that there should be consultation with the colleges. Indeed, the Bill goes out of its way to remove the requirement for consultation which exists in Section 144(2) of the parent Act.—[Interruption.] The Minister mutters that there is no requirement for consultation. He may perhaps be interpreting consultation in a dictionary sense, but the purport of that subsection is quite clear. The effect of the subsection is that if the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations about the life, the conduct, the

future and the very existence of these colleges, he has to publish the regulations in draft 40 days in advance and must send a copy of them to everybody concerned.

Mr. Millan: He does not.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman is muttering. I will read the subsection:
Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the Secretary of State shall, not less than forty days before making regulations under this Act, cause a draft of the regulations to be published …
The Minister will be with me up to this point. Before making the regulations they must be published in draft 40 days in advance:
… and send a copy thereof to every education authority.
The Minister will agree that a copy of the draft regulation has to be sent to every education authority. The Minister mutters that this has nothing to do with the central institutions, but perhaps he will stop muttering and listen. From that point on, the Secretary of State:
… shall have regard to any representations made by an education authority or by any person interested before he makes the regulations.
Of course that covers the central institutions and could well cover any student. It could cover any of the people over whose lives and future the Secretary of State has taken such wide powers in Clause 15. The Minister says, quite rightly, that this is not consultation. But if there are to be no draft regulations—and we do not require that there should be—then there must be a process of consultation, and the Minister must see this.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the words I am about to use. There is a simple reason for putting these words in the Bill. It is that their purpose has been announced already. It was announced by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the requirement in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment.
6.0 p.m.
I suggest that those words will be familiar to the Minister since they are a


slight adaptation of his own words on the last day of the Report stage of the Bill, when the debate collapsed ignominiously because the Government lost their supporters. The hon. Gentleman then, in relation to another Amendment, said:
There is a simple reason for putting the date in the Bill. It is that the date has been announced already. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the date in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1969; Vol. 783, c. 524.]
If it was right to put the date in the Bill—and we do not believe that it was right—in order to remove uncertainty, then it must be equally right to accept our Amendment so as to write its requirement into the Bill, since the circumstances are precisely the same.
I will not open again the whole debate on Clause 1, but perhaps I will remind the House that when we debated the Bill on Report on 7th May, the Government introduced the date of 1st August, 1970, as the date when fee paying was to be abolished in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We had no indication that this date was to be written into the Bill. The Government in reply said, "We announced this on Second Reading, we made it clear in Committee, and to remove any uncertainty we are now putting the date in the Bill."
That is a precise parallel with the consultation provision which we wish to write into the Bill. Just as the Secretary of State announced the date at Second Reading, so he announced his intention to consult. Just as this date was repeated in Committee, so was the intention to consult. Just as the Minister thought it right to put the date into the Bill in order to remove uncertainty, so we believe that the requirement to consult should be written into the Bill in order to remove uncertainty. The uncertainty is there, and it is a large one extending to all the colleges in Scotland. Hon. Members will remember the volume of correspondence which we all received from the colleges during our earlier debates on the Bill.
I have said that I accept the good faith of the Secretary of State and of the Government generally in saying that there will be consultation. Although I

accept the good faith of the Government, they have not made a good start in convincing the central institutions that consultation will be genuine, widespread and effective. Nor have they given the central institutions any indication that the points of view of the central institutions will be taken into account by the Government.
I should like to remind the House that we are not dealing with trivial matters, but with the structure of the colleges. We are dealing with the structure of their governing bodies, with their teaching staffs and their student organisations, and with the very existence and survival of the colleges themselves.
I have learned through one of my hon Friends that one of the central institutions, a very well known institution, as recently as only last month expressed considerable surprise at what the Government are doing in the Bill. They had no idea at all, even at the beginning of last month, that the requirement to hear representations was to be removes, Indeed, the letter, under the heading "Legislation affecting Central Institutions", dated 2nd May, said:
No information with regard to this legislation has come to us direct from the Scottish Education Department, but on inouiry I found that the Education (Scotland) Bill has passed the Committee stage in the House of Commons and is now at the Report stage.
I accept that there was no requirement for the Government to consult with the central institutions about the proposals in this Bill.

Mr. Millan: Would the hon. Member say which central institution did not know that this particular Clause was in the Bill?

Mr. MacArthur: Certainly it was one of the central institutions. Perhaps I could hand the letter privately to the Minister now. Here it is.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to read it.

Mr. MacArthur: It is from the principal of one of the central institutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I am not going to say. The hon. Gentleman will see the letter. It was written to one of my hon. Friends. It is perfectly proper that I should make no further reference to the matter than that. The fact is that the principal of this very well known college has stated, in the letter dated 2nd


May, that he had no information direct from the Scottish Education Department about the legislation. The hon. Gentleman can have the letter if he wishes.
This reflects the uncertainty in the minds of the central institutions. I know that they will join with me in accepting the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration. But declarations are not enough. If we are to remove the requirement of publishing draft regulations which already exists, if in Clause 15 we are to give vast powers to the Secretary of State, it is only reasonable to require consultation between the Government and the grant-aided colleges before the regulations are put into effect. I know that this is the Government's own wish. Therefore, I ask them to show their good faith by accepting the Amendment and by writing these protective words into the Bill.

Mr. Younger: I cannot begin to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend; indeed, I shall be wise not to try to do so. I add my support to what he has said about the necessity for this Amendment.
I would go a little further and say that I should be very disappointed if the Minister does not accept the Amendment. I raised the matter originally in Committee and, having had an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister, my hon. Friends and I went out of our way to produce an Amendment which would meet the arguments which were deployed by the Minister in Committee. That is why Amendment No. 57 does not go nearly as far as the previous Amendment which was discussed in Committee. The Amendment seeks to keep down the obligation to what is reasonable and minimal in carrying out the expressed intention of the Secretary of State on Second Reading and the Minister's words in Committee to consult with these institutions.
I make no allegation that the consultation between the Department and the central institutions is not adequate. My limited experience is that it is extremely good, and there is a close link in most cases. Consultation takes place one way and the other well and satisfactorily. But I want to draw attention to the key paragraph in what the Under-Secretary said in Committee. In the columns which he filled in trying to answer this argument,

without much enthusiasm from those pressing the argument, there was one paragraph which tried to put his objection. And that argument seems to be largely met by the form of this present Amendment. He said:
When one considers the variety of regulations we have to produce under the Education Acts and the very large number and variety of bodies interested in education legislation it is difficult to impose a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult which either is not too restrictive, on the one side, so that large numbers of interested people are omitted from the process of consultation, or so wide a responsibility on the other hand that it becomes completely impossible".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 636.]
That is a good argument and deserves answering, which is why great care has been taken in this Amendment to see that the Secretary of State is obliged to consult only the managers of any grant-aided college affected by the regulations proposed.
Surely that is not an intolerable administrative burden. It will not cause a great influx of extra staff and give great expense and bother merely to ensure that, as of right, they must consult a grant-aided institution affected by a regulation. One could not make it more sensible or more pointed. If that is not acceptable, the only possible conclusion is that the Minister wants the right to produce regulations without consultation. If that is not the conclusion, I should like to know what is. He and all his successors down the years, until the Bill is amended, will be bound by the statement of the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman's own statement in Committee and any that he may make tonight, yet the Government are not prepared to be bound by Statute.
The only possible conclusion is that they foresee an occasion—I am sure that their desire to consult is genuine—when it would be necessary for the Department not to consult such a grant-aided college. We are entitled to some idea of such an occasion. Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of an occasion on which he would wish to produce regulations affecting a college without consulting it? I do not expect him to tie himself to describing every such occasion, but let him give us one example of what is worrying him about having this written in.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not regard this Amendment as produced for its own sake or simply to ventilate a point of view. He may understand this better if he puts himself in the position of a governor of one of these institutions. Of course, virtually all the financing of these institutions is provided by the Government, whether by student grants or grants direct from the Department. A great deal of the policy is decided by Government, by Acts of Parliament, by administrative actions and by trends in education controlled by the Secretary of State.
6.15 p.m.
Yet very distinguished and excellent men and women sit on the governing bodies and there is a real problem, even today—it will grow in future—of giving these busy people a real job which they regard as worth while. All those to whom I have spoken—I know quite a number—feel that they are doing a worthwhile job, because they know that they are given the consultation which people of their calibre should have in running these institutions, entirely voluntarily and with great care and attention. If it were ever felt that there was an area of policy in the detailed running of these institutions where consultation was not possible, if there were any feeling among these people that their views might occasionally not be sought or not be wanted, this will create a doubt in some of their minds about whether they will do such a useful and public-spirited job in future.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the thoughts behind the Amendment. I cannot believe that its acceptance will add one iota to the work which his Department must do to keep its relations with these institutions as they should be. He will lose nothing by accepting. If he accepted it, he would not only be responding to one of the proper and genuine jobs which Parliament should do—the raising of an issue which should be raised before the Government of the day—but would be making a real gesture of confidence towards these governing bodies, now and in future.
Even if he must play for time again, as he did in Committee, and decline to accept this particular Amendment, I beg him to carry on his consultation procedures in the weeks to come, and if necessary, amend the Bill in another

place as we suggest. I hope that he will address himself above all to this key question—what occasion can he perceive when he will introduce a regulation affecting the detailed running of a grant-aided college when he will not consult it beforehand? Let him tell us that convincingly, and I would view the Amendment differently. However, as it stands, I am certain that the Amendment would lose nothing for the Government and would gain for them a great deal of good will. It should be accepted, and I hope that it will be.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I support the Amendment because it is extremely important that we give reassurance to those who are greatly concerned that this has been omitted from the Bill.
I first raised this matter on Second Reading with the Secretary of State, or at least one aspect of the matter, and I still have great anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) rightly argued that the Govrnment have twice said that they will consult those concerned. If this is indeed their intention and they will consult, then surely they can accept the Amendment as simply putting into print the undertaking which has been given. I should be very surprised if any Government would wish to give a serious undertaking in this House and then not agree to write it into the Bill.
I speak on this Amendment because I have been a student at one of the institutions concerned and I have been a governor of another. It is important to carry the good will of these institutions at all times. There have been times, with respect to successive Secretaries of State, when good will has not been the keynote of negotiations over important matters. Nobody doubts the need for consultation. The evidence of this is the commitment made by two Ministers that there shall be consultation.
The central institutions have a very difficult rôle to play. At present they are, broadly speaking, divided in Scotland between the old institutions which are highly specialised and the new institutions which are developing very fast indeed. The governors do particularly good work, and it is important that the governors selected to do this work should include a number


of specialists quite unique in their knowledge of the matter concerned. I should like to think that part of the consultation will be in the appointment of the governors and of successive governors. We have some particularly distinguished people in Scotland, and I hope that the Minister will always have them in mind.
There may be a time when one of our outstanding persons of distinction in, for example, music might be available to govern a college. I should like to think that this will be continued if possible. I can think of others equaliy important to the new and developing institutions of which I have also spoken. I do not think that the governors at present have the confidence that they will be taken into consultation on this point. It is of the greatest importance to them and it is equally important again in the art school.
The Secretary of State gave me some assurance on Second Reading that this would be done, but I should like the Minister, if he will be courteous enough to give me his attention, to reinforce what was said by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and give me an assurance that there will be consultation on this point.
My final point concerns the developing need for communication with students. "Communication" has become a very popular word. It is curious that the Government today are apparently not prepared to look at a very simple method of communication by writing into the Bill that there shall be consultation on important matters. But if there is a need for communication today, there is an urgent need for communication between the staff and students, between the staff and the Government of the day and between the governors and all three. We are endeavouring to write into the Bill the certainty that there will be consultation which will include, if necessary, participation by students and by staff.
I hope that the Minister will treat the Amendment with the seriousness that it deserves, which is a very high rating indeed reckoned by anyone who has personal knowledge of these institutions.
However satisfied the Minister may feel that assurances have been given, this is not the feeling in the institutions concerned and amongst those most closely connected with them. If, by accepting the

Amendment, the Minister can add to the good will upon which these institutions depend so much, it will certainly strengthen the Bill, and I cannot see that it could in any way weaken the hand of this or any successive Government.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) in his opening remarks more than once accused the Minister of muttering. Whether this is a justified charge or not, it is certainly not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In my short career in this House I have seldom heard so much synthetic anger and fury over such a comparatively minor Amendment. The only way in which the hon. Gentleman's performance fell short of his usual standard was in terms of staying power. On a comparatively minor Amendment, the hon. Gentleman fell short of 30 minutes by a couple of points. This is not the form of which we know he is capable.
I have some sympathy with the arguments which have been put forward. It seems to me that this is a matter merely of reassurance, not of substance. Putting the case in simple terms, there is a genuine worry among the managers and governors of the central institutions. This I know, because in my area they have come to talk to me on this issue. If we accept that there is this level of concern, why not give them the statutory words merely as a form of reassurance? Put in those terms it is attractive, but when we get down to the implications and difficulties we see that this is an oversimplification. There is no point in writing in a form of statutory words unless it will clarify the situation and strengthen the position of the central institutions. I do not think it will.
In the past I have listened to debates about whether consultation is adequate. There has been consultation. Hon. Members opposite have said that it has merely been a form of words; it has merely been lip service. The statutory duty does not remove grievances if the Government ultimately take a decision which goes against the wishes of some of the people concerned. So we shall not definitively end discontent or discord by writing in a duty to consult.
What is the meaning of the phrase,
he shall have regard to any representations made"?


Its meaning completely defeats my imagination. The phrase "shall have regard to", presumably does not mean that the recommendations which have been made must be accepted. The matter is further befogged and clouded by those words. I am prepared to accept that the intention is to reassure the governors of the central institutions but that reassurance is worth nothing.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will have regard to the fact that these words appear in the 1962 Act. The requirement on the Minister to have regard to representations appears throughout every form of statute that we have. It is not new.

Mr. Dewar: It is not new. This kind of argument will rage on and on. Those who wish to make speeches can always find an excuse on this kind of issue. The fact that it has appeared in statutes in the past seems to suggest that it does not have the kind of magic powers which have been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. MacArthur: My point is that the Bill in its present form is removing that requirement completely. We wish to restore that requirement.

Mr. Dewar: My point is that we can write into the Bill the duty to consult, but that does not end the problems. Consultation can be, I repeat, a fairly meaningless process. Consultation will in any case take place. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that he did not doubt the good intentions of the Government. There seemed to be some disunity in the Conservative camp on that matter which I should think would have been straightened out after a long Committee stage. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire seeks to assure the House that he did not doubt the good intentions of the Government Front Bench, but the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) indeed, seemed to doubt them. He got himself into the position of saying in effect that he did not trust this Government but he distrusted some future Government. That has an interesting implication given his biased views on Britain's political future over the next few years.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I asked to be told of the occasions on which, if any, a regulation would be produced which was not the subject of consultation.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member tot Perth and East Perthshire said that he accepted that there always would be consultation, and he added that assurances had been given to this effect. The hon. Member for Ayr is either accepting the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire has vouched for the Government's bona fides and he is distrusting some other future Government, or he is going counter to the views of his own Front Bench. The whole argument is shot with fallacies, and will not do anything to help the situation.
Prime facie there is something to be said for reassurances in a situation like this, but if the Government and the central institutions were to look at what the reassurance would amount to they would realise that it was a matter of no substance. If, on every possible occasion when it would be reasonable to do so and when one would expect any reasonable Government to be anxious to explore and discuss possible reforms, we were to write that in as a statutory duty, we should clutter the Statute Book with an enormous number of words which are utterly unnecessary.
For that reason, and because at the end of the day what is suggested will not usefully or materially strengthen the position of the central institutions in the negotiations which it has been admitted will almost certainly take place, I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I waited with interest to hear what line the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) would take, because his determination to support the Government on every possible occasion, whatever the case, excites the admiration of anybody who admires people who support a lost cause with so much enthusiasm. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument was even weaker than I have heard him advance in the past. All it came down to was that if this requirement were put in the Bill the consultations could still be inadequate. That


happens whatever legislation is passed. It may not work. People may break the law. The fact remains that it is our job to pass legislation in as good a form as we can get it.
When the hon. Gentleman says that to start putting in this statutory requirement amounts to introducing something new, he is misrepresenting the situation. What is happening here, and what we are trying to prevent, is that the requirement to consult is being withdrawn.

Mr. Millan: We considered this matter at some length in Committee, but I am happy to go over some of the arguments again. Perhaps we can start by looking at Section 144 of the 1962 Act, which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) specifically mentioned. That section provided for provisional regulations, but it did not do a number of things which the hon. Gentleman suggested it did. For example, it did not lay down matters for statutory consultation, which is what the hon. Gentleman suggested it did. Nor, for that matter, did it provide that a copy of draft regulations should be sent to everybody who was interested in them, or could be affected by them. If we had accepted the proposition put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee that we should retain Section 144(2), the central institutions would never have received a copy of the draft regulations, because all that that subsection refers to is sending a copy of the draft to the education authority. It was therefore misconceived, as I said in Committee, to wish to retain that subsection.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman spoke for nearly half an hour. I have hardly started, and I have not the slightest intention of speaking for anything like that long. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. We are not in Committee.

Mr. Millan: As I said, the argument in Committee about Section 144 was misconceived, but we have now dealt with that section. We have eliminated subsection (2), which provided for the making of regulations in draft. Incidentally, we have also eliminated subsection (3) of that section, which provided for

the making of provisional regulations for reasons of urgency.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) suggested that there could never be circumstances in which the Secretary of State would want to make regulations so urgently that he would not have time to go through the necessary statutory processes. The fact is that such an occasion arose within the last two or three years in connection with the General Teaching Council, when, as the Government, we used Section 144(3). We shall no longer have the opportunity of using that subsection, because we have eliminated it in the Amendment to Clause 23.
We have settled the argument about Section 144, and there are no other Amendments to Clause 23. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel so strongly about this question of consultation, I am surprised that they have not introduced the argument in relation to Clause 23, where we could look at the whole question, but have chosen instead to raise the issue on this Clause where we are considering the matter only in relation to the grant-aided colleges which are covered by this Clause.
That is really one of the basic difficulties about the proposition being put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I accept, and I made this clear on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend, and I made it clear again in Committee, and I do so once more now, that there is an obligation on the Government to consult the institutions and bodies affected by regulations which we intend to make This is part and parcel of the normal process of government at the present time We regularly consult local education authorities, teachers associations, and so on, and we shall continue to do that, and in the new circumstances where the central institutions specifically are coming under that regulatory power we shall consult them, too.
It would be very odd to include in an obligation under this Clause to consult the bodies concerned with it, an obligation statutorily to consult when in the Bill as it is now, and as it will be even if the Amendment is accepted, there is no obligation to consult local education authorities or teachers associations on any matter which is the subject of regulations, even though those regulations may have important consequences for the education authorities and the teachers associations


If the Amendment is accepted, there will be a statutory obligation to consult the bodies concerned under this Clause about the effects of this Clause, but no statutory obligation to consult the larger number of bodies which may be concerned with matters raised not only under the Bill but under education legislation generally. It seems to me that that would be an absurd position, and for that reason alone I could not possibly accept the Amendment.

Mr. Younger: Surely the Minister is going against his own argument? If we had said that the Minister should consult everybody concerned about every subject he could say that it would be hopeless to try to consult so many people so often, but it is in the interests of narrowing this consultation to the vital area that can be coped with that the Amendment has been drawn so closely.

Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend said, that is a phoney point, because in particular circumstances we could narrow down the regulations even to particular individuals, certainly to teachers associations, and in some instances to local education authorities and others. That disposes of the hon. Gentleman's argument earlier about the Opposition's Amendment being narrowly drawn.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the point is that there are alternative roads for the other people the Minister has mentioned through their associations—the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, and so on? But there is no direct consultation with the institutions and that is why it is reasonable to provide the administrative possibility by narrowing the Amendment as we have, and the Minister's argument is fallacious for that reason.

Mr. Millan: There is, in fact, an association of central institutions, though I do not place any particular emphasis on that, and the governing bodies meet together and consult about matters of common concern.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire read out at great length all the various matters on which the Secretary of State has regulatory power under the Clause. It is an impressive, even

formidable list, but the Secretary of State's present powers to make regulations about the colleges of education are virtually just as comprehensive; there may be differences in wording, but in practice they are as comprehensive as anything in the Clause.
It was interesting that all the arguments put on the Amendment today kept referring to the central institutions. The Clause deals not only with the central institutions but also with the colleges of education. The difference between the central institutions and the colleges of education in this respect is very simple. It is that the colleges of education have already been subject to regulation, whereas the central institutions are being brought under the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State for the first time, something that I understand has the support of the whole House.
I suggest that one of the reasons why we have had so many representations by the central institutions—and I recognise that they have been sincerely made—is that they have no experience of the normal process of consultation that goes on between Government and bodies subject to regulations, because they have never been subject to regulations. It is significant that the local education authorities, for example, have not asked for a statutory obligation to consult to be written into the Bill, because they know that as a matter of course the Government consult them before regulations affecting them are put into operation. Similarly, the colleges of education, which are bodies just as distinguished as the boards of governors of central institutions, have made no representations on this point, because they know from their experience that when we are dealing with matters affecting colleges of education we consult them, although there is no statutory obligation to do so, and we shall continue to consult them.
Therefore, I think that what the central institutions require is not something written into the Bill, which would be at odds with everything else we are doing for other bodies concerned with regulations, but a reassurance, which I am glad to give again, that in practice they need not worry about the process of consultation, because consultation there certainly will be.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire read a letter from an undisclosed central institution—he was extremely coy about giving me its name—which suggested, although what he said to us was rather obscure on this point, that the principal of the institution had no knowledge of the Clause, and did not know that this kind of thing was being written into the legislation. If there is a principal of any central institution in Scotland who does not know about the Clause, he is a remarkably ignorant man; we discussed the Clause with the central institutions even before the Bill was published, and consultations are going on with the central institutions about the possible content of the regulations when the Bill is enacted. Therefore, I do not accept for one moment that any principal of a central institution should be in any doubt about the contents of the Clause and the Government's views on what might go into the regulations. Certainly, there should be no principal of a central institution in any doubt about the commitment which the Government have made, and which I have just repeated, to have consultations with the governors before regulations are introduced.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Are there many central institutions? Can my hon. Friend give us some examples of those that would be consulted?

Mr. Millan: We have consulted them all. It depends on exactly what we include, but I think there are 10. They include Robert Gordon's Institute in Aberdeen, the Dundee Institute of Art and Technology, the Paisley College of Technology and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, which I visited the other day, when this point was not even mentioned to me, never mind raised as a matter of great concern. There are the colleges of domestic education, Leith Nautical College, the Woollen Institute at Galashiels, and perhaps one or two others. We have already had consultations with them as to what might go into the regulations.
Only one other point was raised. The hon. Member for Renfrew, East spoke about the importance of good communication between staff and students and so on. I am glad she raised this point, because the regulations dealing with the

colleges of education at present include references to the student body, student discipline and so on. It is interesting that none of the instruments of government of the central institutions has any reference to students, and as far as I recollect none of them has any provision in its constitution for staff to serve as governors of the body concerned. So far from the power given here taking away from the communication between staff and students or between staff and governors, it will give us the opportunity to make specific provision for these matters for the central institutions in a way similar to that which we have already made for the colleges of education.
Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendments. In saying that, I in no way attribute insincerity to the governors of the institutions concerned. I am not saying that they have had assurances which it is wrong for them not to have accepted. I can understand that they are in a period of uncertainty and that they may well feel that they require something written into the Bill. But I do not believe that they do need it written in, and to write it in would be a great mistake, with considerable implications. To write it in for them would mean that we should have to write it in for everyone, which would be very undesirable.
For all these reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Amendments.

Mr. MacArthur: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may make some comments on what the Minister has said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House.

Mr. MacArthur: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, may I say as a matter of courtesy to you that I do not intend to detain the House for long.
The hon. Gentleman has given a very disappointing reply to our Amendments. I particularly regret the way in which he gives the impression of playing a sort of game of catch-as-catch-can. So often he said in Committee that we should not do a thing one way but should do it another, and then if we did it that way he said that we should do it in yet another way. He did this jumping from


Clause to Clause in Committee, and today he has returned to that habit, which I find rather disagreeable.
The Under-Secretary fails to understand why this protection should be written into the Bill. I remind him yet again that Section 144(2) of the 1962 Act will be abolished when this Measure is enacted. There will, therefore, be no process whereby those who are concerned about these regulations can make representations to the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman said that consultations will take place. The same was said by the Secretary of State. I accept their good faith, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out, unless they can foresee a situation in which it might be inconvenient for consultations to take place, there is no reason why they should not agree to write this simple protection into the Bill.
I was not trying to make a great deal of the letter from the principal, but it is worth reiterating that in his correspondence of May he pointed out:
No information with regard to this legislation has come to us direct from the Scottish Education Department …
That may have referred to the progress of the legislation, but the fact remains that the principal did not feel that adequate consultation had taken place. Despite the assurances given by the Government at the meeting last November—I gather that that was the meeting to which the Under-Secretary referred—the colleges are not content with the position and want this protection written into the Bill.
While I do not wish to detain the House, it is interesting to note what some of the letters that we have received have said. [Interruption.] I do not know how many such letters hon. Gentlemen opposite have received. It is important that we take note of representations of this kind and, while I would be in order in reading them all, I will quote from only two. One says:
They"—
that is, the governors of this college—
agree that the assurance given by the Secretary of State … and by Mr. Millan … go a long way to allay the uneasiness

felt by the Governors. However, they find it hard to understand why the Government is unwilling to give this assurance the necessary statutory backing by having it included in a suitable form within the Bill. They feel that their position will only be fully protected if an appropriate clause is inserted at the Committee stage indicating that such consultations must be carried out before any regulations are made under the Clause.
Another letter reads:
At a meeting in St. Andrew's House … an assurance was given (and repeated by the Secretary of State in the debate on the Second Reading) that such prior consultation would take place, but we are all disappointed that no such assurance has been written into the Bill.
All the other letters make the same point. I therefore cannot understand why the Government will not insert this protection, particularly in view of the wide powers that are being taken by the Secretary of State in Clause 15. Indeed, as the Under-Secretary said, there is a formidable list of powers, which I will not detail again.
This point distinguishes the central institutions from the other bodies. These powers are enormous and, because they are so great and because they can be invoked by regulations—which no longer need to be circulated and about which representations can no longer be made—it is important that a process of consultation should exist.
I am surprised and disappointed that the Under-Secretary did not refer to the precisely parallel case to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. This being Report stage, is it permissible for the hon. Gentleman to make a second major speech?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for Mr. Speaker to say what speeches are major and what are minor.

Mr. Lawson: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a starred Amendment applying to a subject which was extensively debated in Committee upstairs, are we obliged to listen yet again to a repetition of the arguments at such length?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that he must listen patiently to remarks of which he may disapprove.

Mr. MacArthur: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and assure him that we should be only too happy if our arguments could be got into the Minister's head simply and rapidly. Unfortunately that has not been our experience throughout the discussion of the Bill. I regret that I must make certain points a second or third time. I was about to bring my remarks to a close when the hon. Gentleman rose on a point of order. If he had not interrupted me I should have been finished by now.
The parallel to this Amendment is the Amendment moved by the Government recently when they introduced a date into Clause 1 with the aim of removing doubt. That was done despite a firm

assurance given on Second Reading that such a date would, without its being written into the Bill, be the date when the fee-paying schools would be abolished. That date was given to remove doubt. The Amendment should be accepted for the same reason in precisely the same way to underline precisely the assurance given by the Government. Because I am disappointed with the content and terms of the Under-Secretary's reply, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 174.

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, J. E. B.
Scott, Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Silvester, Frederick


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Chataway, Christopher
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Foster, Sir John
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Gibson-Watt, David
Nott, John
Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Archer, Peter
Baxter, William
Boston, Terence


Armstrong, Ernest
Bence, Cyril
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur




Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rankin, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fowler, Gerry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E.



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Haseldine, Norman
Padley, Walter
Mr. Neil McBride and


Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Mr. J. D. Concannon


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.

Clause 16

AGE OF RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 23, line 25, leave out 'on the date on' and insert:
'at the end of the school term during'.
This is an important Clause for those teachers in posts of responsibility who have already reached the age of 65 or who may be approaching it. It is difficult to be certain how many teachers will be affected by this provision, because the reply given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 10th March was that the numbers were not available but that a computer was busily working them out. Whether or

not the answer is now available. I do not know.
The point is that under the Clause as it stands, except for the important provision in the first line
Except where his employer otherwise determines …
a teacher in a post of responsibility will have to give up that post, and if necessary leave the school, on his 65th birthday. Those who are presently 65 will have to give up their posts on the date of the enactment of this Measure. I readily appreciate, of course, that unless Amendment No. 22 is agreed, this provision will be put into effect by means of a Statutory Instrument.
Those of us who have worked on the Bill or who are interested in teaching in any form realise the importance of


these posts of responsibility, and feel it wrong that teachers in those posts should be forced to retire in mid-term. For that reason, we seek to alter the date of retirement from the 65th birthday to the end of the term. We have earlier argued at length about the importance of continuity in relation to the single leaving date of pupils, and this principle of continuity is equally important in relation to teachers in posts of responsibility. It disrupts school life in many ways if these teachers have to leave in the middle of the term. To me, I admit, it is almost unthinkable that a local authority would ask a teacher to retire in the middle of a term, and because it is so unthinkable I have every hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment.
I accept, too, that there is always concern, particularly among the younger members of the profession, that there must be no blockage of promotion; that when a teacher reaches the age which the Government and local authorities have determined as the age of retirement, that should be it, and there should be opportunity of promotion. Nevertheless, we feel that for a matter of two or three months that principle should give way in favour of the Amendment. That the teacher should not retire until the end of the term would be good for the teacher, good for the local authority as it would prevent disruption in posts of responsibility, and good for the pupils.
I should like the Secretary of State to go a little further and accept that the date of retirement should be at the end of the holidays following the terms when the teacher reaches age 65. A teacher should be entitled to his holiday on full pay following the term in which he finishes his work. Because what is proposed by the Amendment is likely to happen in practice, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brewis: I support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). We should be considering the interests of the child in education. I cannot believe that it would be right for a teacher holding such a post to be changed arbitrarily on the day he reaches 65, or, in other cases, when he reaches 70. I should be prepared to go further and say that it should be at the end of the school year in which the teacher reaches that age. Only

a month or two maybe concerned and this would affect his pension. Many teachers who are nearing 65 or 70 had difficulties about getting jobs in the thirties. There was great difficult for certificated teachers to get employment then. An extra few months might make a serious effect to their pensions.

Mr. Ross: I have every sympathy with the intentions of the Amendment. I was touched with the point about the difficulty for teachers in getting jobs in the thirties. That was the time when I was trying to get a job as a teacher. However, I think the dangers of a break in continuity in the teaching process from the point of view of pupils is something which will be seized upon by education authorities themselves.
That is the main reason why the words quoted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)
except where his employer otherwise determines".
are there. Those words give complete flexibility to the local education authority to continue employment of a teacher for so long as need be and within the necessary limits in the position of a post of special responsibility. We have to bear in mind that the subsection as it stands does not require immediate retirement at age 65. That is the purpose of its opening words.
7.15 p.m.
There is in any event a defect in the Amendment because it says
at the end of the school term".
It is not entirely clear what would happen if the teacher became 65 during the holidays which is not during the school term. I think I can allay the fears of the mover and supporter of the Amendment about the damage which they feel might possibly be done. We have to leave this to the good sense of local authorities and follow the advice we have had in our consultations on the principles of the Bill. We consulted the Association of County Councils, which asked that the age of 65 should replace the previous requirement of the completion of 45 years' service. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association supported that change.
Bearing in mind that the subsection does not prevent an employer keeping a teacher in post after he is 65 we should retain this flexibility for good educational practice. From the point of view of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) it is interesting to note that the E.I.S. asks for mandatory resignation from promoted posts in all cases on attaining the age of 65, but we prefer flexibility for local education authorities because there might otherwise be disruption. Anyone who is aware of the practice of education authorities knows that they are very reasonable. I do not visualise great difficulty. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked for numbers but I am afraid I cannot give them at present. Retiral for men is about 65 and for women about 63. Bearing in mind the actual practice of local education authorities in exercising the flexibility which will be in the Clause as it stands we do not see any great difficulty occurring. I am afraid I cannot ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept the principle which my hon. Friends have put forward and said that there was flexibility for the local authorities themselves to decide on the date. The Under-Secretary in Committee also gave the impression that he was in favour of flexibility as suggested in this Amendment and that local authorities would not require a resignation to take place in the middle of a term. It is, therefore, disappointing that the Secretary of State has not been able to accept this Amendment nor to say that he would accept a similar one after suggesting that there is something faulty in the wording of this one. Its object is quite clear.
The point made about pensions struck a sympathetic chord in him when my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) pointed out that retirement at the end of the term could have an effect on the pension for which a teacher was eligible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not said his last word on this proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to holidays at the end of the term in which a teacher becomes 65. That point should be in the minds of local authorities. The Government appear to have accepted, in Committee and today,

that local authorities ought not to terminate a teacher's employment in the middle of a term or at some other inappropriate date. They have said that the local authority can itself extend the period in which the teacher is employed. But then the local authority would have to defer in every such case on every occasion. This would make unnecessary work.
Surely it would be better to include in the Bill the principle, which the Secretary of State himself accepts, making it perfectly clear that local authorities would not require resignation in the middle of a term.

Mr. Woodburn: I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Bill is wide enough to give discretion to the local authorities.
This works both ways. It is sometimes desirable that local authorities should not be under pressure to continue in a job somebody who should not be in the job. Naturally, authorities will be anxious to retain good teachers, but in some cases it is important that there should be a break, without any reflection on the person concerned or on the authority, and without any argument about whether it is right to allow him to continue in office. It may be a good thing for the pupils that a teacher should retire at 65. But in my experience, local authorities are glad to retain good teachers in their posts, and very often not only until the end of the term. If a person has not taken up his career as a teacher at the earliest possible moment, he may reach 65 with a year or two to go before he can benefit from his pension. Local authorities are sympathetic in the case of good teachers and, as in the Civil Service, they may allow them to work out their time.
There is the problem of the pressure of people wanting promotion. One of the difficulties of asking teachers and civil servants to work beyond the age of 60 is that if the age is increased to 65 it stops promotion for five years. Therefore, teachers who think that they are better than their colleagues at the job press for promotion. It is a mistake for Parliament to legislate when it does not know the facts. It is better to leave it to the people who are responsible for doing the job to make a judgment. I am sure that we can trust local education


authorities. They are extremely considerate with teachers and they are anxious to ensure that pupils get the best education.
Teachers are not necessarily good for the pupils. I know of a girl who passed every examination except the mathematics examination. Fortunately for her, her teacher became ill. Therefore, she got a new teacher and passed the examination with flying colours. It may be good for the school if a teacher retires at 65, but we must leave it to the people responsible to judge.

Mr. Younger: I very much appreciate the sympathetic way in which the Secretary of State answered the debate. What he said was absolutely right. However, I wonder whether, looking ahead to another place, he would be prepared to bend a little in this case. I think we all agree that the Bill allows local education authorities to do exactly what we would wish namely, to allow teachers to carry on to the end of the term in which they come of retirement age. We all accept that this is what will probably happen in every case at the local authority's discretion. Is it not better to legislate for that eventuality and not for one which we all know will hardly occur? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point again.
I agreed with what the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said. It is necessary that a retirement date should be established. It is invidious for some people to be selected for retirement at one date and others to be kept on. Naturally, it is not acceptable to the person who is retired because he does not appreciate that the education authority may desire to keep on another person. As we are all sympathetic to the idea, perhaps the Amendment could be redrafted and brought forward in another place to give effect to what we know will happen in practice. That would make for better legislation.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not yield in the slightest to the Opposition pressure. I wish to deal with one point which arises in almost every school and which over the years local authorities have been doing their best to deal with.
In primary schools in Scotland there is scarcely a male teacher other than the head teacher. This problem of the paucity of male teachers in primary schools is due solely to the lack of promoted posts. Local authorities which have tried to attract and keep male teachers in primary schools have created posts of special responsibility carrying higher payments to keep up the number of male teachers in primary schools.
The problem is more obvious in secondary schools. During the recess I visited one of Glasgow's largest secondary schools, which is in my division. Almost every department in that school has a promoted person for some specific purpose, with a corresponding increase in his salary. If we interfere with the present retiral age we shall re-create the feeling which used to pervade many schools that there is no room for the up-and-coming younger men and that the older ones are clinging to their jobs, with the support of this House. That is wrong. The local authorities are trying to solve this problem in their own way. We should support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill and help local authorities in the work that they are doing to maintain the number of male teachers in the schools.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: There is a lot to be said for the Amendment. Some flexibility is necessary in this case. Most authorities allow teachers, and particularly head masters, to carry on to the end of the school year, and not the school term, because it may disrupt the life of the school if a headmaster or principal teacher comes into the school at some other time during the year.
The Secretary of State said that the good sense of the education authority should prevail. If this is always the case, there is nothing to worry about. If an authority thinks that a teacher is carrying out his duties effectively, he should retire at the end of the school year and not at the end of the school term. I agree that if a headmaster or teacher has given long service it is not too much to expect that holidays should count in the period of service.
I agree that we do not want to hold up promotion. One of the drawbacks in the teaching profession is that there are so few chances of promotion. But I do


no see how permitting a teacher to finish the school year would hold up promotion in a way that would affect the profession. I will support the Amendment, unless the Secretary of State can give an assurance that the good sense of the education authorities will always prevail in this matter.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. W. Baxter: I counsel my right hon. Friend to stand by the Clause as it is. I have had almost 30 years' experience of a local authority and have always found it—and I am sure that this applies to others—very considerable to its employees. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has indicated, there are occasions when it is to the advantage of the pupils and to the education system of an area that a teacher should be permitted to retire at the earliest possible moment.
Surely the good sense of a local authority is as good as that of hon. Members. Surely a local authority can reasonably decide that a teacher should have his term of office extended for a few months if it would be to the advantage not only of himself but of the pupils. It would be wrong to make it more or less mandatory on local authorities to do this, that or the other. That would be the negation of the democratic system about which we hear so much and would suggest that we in this House, are the only people who have the good sense to know what should be done. We must recognise that people responsible for local government are, as in national government, entitled to a certain degree of trust that they do their best in the prevailing circumstances.
My experience by and large is that members of local authorities and of education committees and directors of education do their best on behalf of teachers as well as pupils. The Amendment should be withdrawn as ample power is already vested in the local authority to extend the period of a teacher's employment if it so desires.

Mr. Monro: I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members oposite have made such heavy weather of the Amendment. We all agree that this is what is going to happen in practice. We agree that teachers will, because of the discretion allowed in the Clause, be allowed to

retain their posts and responsibilties until the end of term. If that is so, the argument put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) falls flat because the promotion opportunity will still be delayed for two or three months. The Amendment would make no difference as far as promotion is concerned.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so reluctant to put into the Bill what is going to happen in practice. This is an insurance policy, a little additional security for the teachers. For this reason, I feel strongly that the Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he would redraft it in another place, I would withdraw it, but if not, I feel strongly enough to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Woodburn: In a case where the whole school—the headmaster and everyone else—is waiting for a man to leave the staff, have we any right to say that the authority must keep him on after the time when, for the benefit of the school, he should go?

Mr. Monro: I am reluctant to believe that any school is at such loggerheads with its headmaster. That is not an argument worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that it is right for a teacher in a promoted post to leave in a middle of term.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the issue is not whether to give freedom for two or three months but whether or not we break the fixed date of retirement. Once we do that, the whole show is flung wide open.

Mr. Monro: I cannot agree. It is not as wide as that. This is a simple Amendment to give a teacher another two or three months, perhaps only a few weeks, between his 65th birthday and the end of term. It is surely logical.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that this merits a Division of the House of Commons. I smiled when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) made his plea to me because I have in my recollection the memory of headmasters in the local authority whose area he represents who were kept on not to the end of term but for years. It is far better to leave this to


the good sense of the local authorities. They know the problems of the individual and the school and the whole staffing aspect. This is a matter in which I trust the local authorities, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do so too. I hope that

he will not insist on voting on an Amendment which does not make sense.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 165.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[7.36 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Astor, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, w. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Blaker, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Bryan, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maginnis, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dean, Paul
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.


Anderson, Donald
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foley, Maurice


Archer, Peter
Chapman, Donald
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnett, Joel
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Baxter, William
Crawshaw, Richard
Gregory, Arnold


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Binns, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boston, Terence
Dewar, Donald
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James
Dobson, Ray
Haseldine, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hazell, Bert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brooks, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English, Michael
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Ensor, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Hynd, John




Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sheldon, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Neal, Harold
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Judd, Frank
Norwood, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Loughlin, Charles
Padley, Walter
Urwin, T. W.


Luard, Evan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Paget, R. T.
Varley, Eric G.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McBride, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacColl, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacDermot, Niall
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McGuire, Michael
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Weitzman, David


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Wellbeloved, James


Mackie, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughtoh)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rankin, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootte)
Richard, Ivor
Winnick, David


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Marks, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. John McCann and


Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Walter Harrison.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 24, line 11, at end insert:
'being a date not earlier than 1st August, 1970'.
This is not dissimilar from the last Amendment in that it is trying to get some definite information for the teaching profession. As members of the Committee will know, this Clause, which affects the retirement of teachers comes into effect only with the introduction of the Statutory Instrument. From what the Minister said in Committee the moment of the introduction of the Instrument might not be so very far away. The words he used were "fairly soon". Until this Statutory Instrument is introduced—and perhaps he can say tonight when it will be introduced and at what date it will come into effect—there will be a great deal of uncertainty among teachers bordering the age of 65, just under and just over, as to when they might have to retire.
The Amendment would remove this uncertainty and it would be the end of the school session 1970. This would be most beneficial and would relieve the minds of those likely to retire at some stage next year very considerably. I know from experience, because I have been approached about it, that some teachers in posts of responsibility have been considering their future next year and whether to retire at the end of this

term or next term or next spring—certainly before August 1970—because of this uncertainty.
I accept that there is flexibility in the Clause, in that it is entirely up to the local authority when it wishes to implement the retirement date. I do not want to see an unnecessary drop in experienced teachers, which I balance against any drop in promotion. I do not think that delay in implementing this Clause in August, 1970, would have a major effect in that direction. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment and allay the fears nagging away at a number of teachers in posts of responsibility.

Mr. Millan: I could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment, simply because it would introduce another and completely unnecessary element of inflexibility. When the Bill is passed, we shall have to consult the teachers' associations and the local authorities about the timing of the commencement of the Clause. Subsection (4) is in the Clause because we want to have a certain control over the timing, for otherwise the Clause might come into operation in the middle of a term, say.
At one time it appeared that the Bill might go through rather more quickly than has been the case and the Clause might have come into operation at an awkward time when it would have imposed on local authorities the burden of considering the position of the individual


teachers concerned and making decisions about them and discussing their positions with them and so on. We thought that that was undesirable and that it would be better to have a specific commencement Order for the Clause so that the timing could be under some kind of control.
When the Bill is passed, we shall have to discuss this matter with the teachers and the authorities. At this stage, I am not able to anticipate their reactions. However, if there is a feeling of uncertainty among teachers, if there are numbers of teachers who would like the Clause to be delayed for as much as a year, no doubt those feelings will be made known to the teachers' associations and in turn to the Secretary of State, and certainly we should consider any representations of that sort carefully.
However, no one has asked for this Amendment. The local authority associations have not said that they hope that the Clause will not come into force before next year. The teachers' associations have not said that they hope that there will be a year's delay before the Clause is brought into operation. It would be undesirable to discover in our discussions with the associations concerned that they were perfectly happy for the Clause to be brought into operation quickly, but that, because of the Amendment, we were unable to bring it into operation. For that reason I could not possibly accept the Amendment.
If it turns out in our discussions that no one wants the Clause to operate before August, 1970, if there is a strong feeling about that on either side, we shall obviously take that feeling seriously into account, but it would be undesirable, having given ourselves flexibility, to remove it.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a matter which affects the lives of a number of persons holding important posts and it is reasonable for them to have some notice of what is to happen. Putting a date of about a year ahead into the Bill would give those affected the assurance that the Clause would not operate until they had been able to consider their own situations and the effect of the Clause upon them.
The Under-Secretary said that the Government wished to have flexibility because

they were not sure when the Bill would be passed and did not want this provision to come into effect until they had had proper consultations. But the Amendment would not cause the loss of any flexibility after this date in about a year's time. The operation of the Clause would not be tied to any particular date after 1st August, 1970, and the Government could consider with the organisations concerned, looking at the calendar year, what would be the most suitable starting date.
This would be an assurance to those affected that there will be plenty of time for consultation and that this provision will not be suddenly sprung upon them within a few weeks or months of the passing of the Bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and not take the rather stubborn attitude which the Under-Secretary has shown.

Mr. Millan: It is not a question of taking a stubborn attitude. The hon. Gentleman may be under some misunderstanding and may believe that this is a new provision and that there has not been previous legislation deeming retirement ages. However, the Third Schedule of the 1962 Act, for example, lays down provisions about retirement from posts of special responsibility, and so this provision is nothing new. The requirements under the Third Schedule of the 1962 Act were abolished by the Teachers Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1968, because they came in a Schedule which dealt with superannuation. We are now replacing those requirements of the 1962 Act by new requirements, which are admittedly expressed in rather different terms. But the idea of the statutory control of retirement from posts of special responsibility is not new and is not something which has been sprung on teachers. Only a short time ago, there were similar provisions in the 1962 Act and in any event the Bill has been under consideration for some time.
If the teachers' associations find that there is uncertainty and worry about these provisions, no doubt they will convey that feeling to us and we shall seriously consider it, but I have no evidence that that is now the situation. For that reason and having explained the background, which the hon. Member may not have fully understood, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Monro: I would not have suggested the Amendment in the first place if I had not had representations from teachers in posts of special responsibility who were uncertain about their future next year. It was to allay those fears that I suggested the Amendment.
The Minister will agree that in practical terms consultation with the teaching profession is unlikely before perhaps late September. With negotiations to follow, it might well be November or December before he reached a position when he was able to lay a Statutory Instrument. Therefore, for the best part of six months teachers will be left not knowing exactly when they may have to retire.
Retiring is a critical moment in one's career at any age, in this case 65, because there is the probability of buying a new house and settling down to prepare for

the years of retirement and the possibility of another job. All these things need careful planning and thought.

All my Amendment does is to give these good and worthy teachers who have served us for many years the right to know that nothing is likely to prejudice their position between now and August, 1970. It may be only a few months up to the Statutory Instrument, but I strongly feel that we should give the teachers the reassurance that they need not worry, about the coming months, and that is why I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 171.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[7.58 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian


Astor, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Scott, Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Frederick


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)
Speed, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer



Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Corfield, F. V.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNair-Wilson Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
Maginnis, John E.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Emery, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Murton, Oscar



Fortescue, Tim
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foster, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Hector Monro and


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Humphrey Atkins


Gower, Raymond






NOES


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel


Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Baxter, William




Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Albert E.


Binns, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)
Padley, Walter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boston, Terence
Haseldine, Norman
Paget, R. T.


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, W. S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Price, Thomas (Westhougton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rankin, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Varley, Eric G.


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


English, Michael
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winnick, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland
Mr. John McCann and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher

Clause 18

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 85 OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1962

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment selected is No. 23, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 24, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr, J. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 24, line 21, leave out from 'education' to end of line 23.
The purpose of the Amendment is to withdraw the provision in subsection (2)

by which the Secretary of State is taking power to withdraw from teachers in further education at some future date their exemption under the first part of the subsection from the obligation to register in order to continue to enjoy certain privileges accorded to them under the 1962 Act.
My preference was clearly for the withdrawal of the whole Clause—that was the case I argued in Committee—but, since we must now face the fact that the Clause as a whole stands, it is essential to delete the latter part of the subsection.
The question we must decide is whether the Secretary of State should be given power at a future date in effect to extend the obligation of registration with the General Teaching Council to teachers in


further education. My contention is that the answer to this question should be a firm and emphatic "No", and I will endeavour to explain why.
The House is entitled to an explanation from the Government why this part of the subsection was ever inserted in the Bill. No explanation has yet been given in any of our discussions on the Clause and on the Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee. The Under-Secretary simply pointed out, quite correctly and fairly, that the first part of subsection (2) is designed to protect the position of teachers in further education, and that without it they would lose the privileges which they enjoy as certificated teachers under the principal Act of 1962, in the same way as other teachers. Teachers in the schools lose those privileges to the extent that they are not registered with the General Teaching Council under the Clause. It may be a little clearer if I quote what the Under-Secretary said:
The intention of subsection (2) is not to pave the way to registration for further education teachers but to protect them in a situation in which they are not at present required to be registered. If the recommendations about the registration of further education teachers which have been made to the Secretary of State by the General Teaching Council are not brought forward, the full protection of certification given in Section 85 of the 1962 Act will continue. If the Secretary of State accepts that further education teachers should also be registered as an obligation on them, apart from the Regulations provided for that, we shall have to take steps to discontinue subsection (2) of this Clause.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 619.]
He ended by saying that there would be ample opportunity to discuss the rights or demerits of registration of further education teachers, but he did not, either then or on Second Reading, and neither did his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, explain the arguments which had led him to conclude that what I described in Committee as a paving Clause, in the sense that it prepares for future action by the Secretary of State, should be included, beyond saying that there had been this recommendation from the General Teaching Council which the Government would consider, and implying that the Clause had been drafted in this way in the light of that recommendation. We need an explanation of the motivation behind the Government's drafting.
The Wheatley Committee on whose recommendations the Clause is based was not considering the position of teachers in further education and not making any recommendations about teachers in further education. I am strongly opposed to any further extension of compulsory registration and any further withdrawal of the rights of certificated teachers who are not now registered under the 1962 Act.
8.15 p.m.
What would be the purpose of extending the remit of the General Teaching Council to teachers in further education? The purpose of the G.T.C., as recommended by the Wheatley Committee and throughout our discussions, is to enhance the status and to protect and improve the calibre of the teaching profession, but, in considering what has happened since the General Teaching Council was set up in relation to teachers in schools, we must have considerable reservations about the desirability of extending its responsibilities to teachers in further education.
The setting up of the General Teaching Council has led within the past year to the dismissal of at least a score of highly qualified and experienced teachers in schools, and to a position where about 7,000 highly qualified and experienced teachers are currently facing the threat of immediate dismissal. On the other hand, it has led to several hundred teachers who are unable to obtain the qualifications necessary for registration, and who are in some cases unlikely ever to be able to obtain such qualifications, being retained in the schools. If this is a method of protecting the status and enhancing the calibre of the profession, it is a mighty odd one, and that is why I do not think we should extend the operations of the G.T.C., and, in particularly, the obligation upon teachers to register with the G.T.C. if they wish to preserve their rights under Section 85 of the 1962 Act, to teachers in further education.
Do we wish to see a situation among teachers in further education where some who choose to defy the Government's attempts to bully them into registration in one year get sacked for so doing, and where other teachers in the following year who commit precisely the same so-called "crime" get away with it with impunity?


Is this the sort of mock justice that we want to extend to teachers in institutes of further education? I believe that we should have no part in it, and that is why I have put down Amendment No. 23. I am unalterably opposed to the procedures of bullying teachers and the arm-twisting of local authorities which has gone on during the last year in respect of teachers in schools being extended to teachers in further education. Our experience during the past year should lead us to think again before accepting the wording of the Clause unless my Amendment is accepted.
I accept Amendment No. 24. I hope that we shall be able to have separate Divisions on the two Amendments. Amendment No. 24 provides a useful further safeguard, in that it would require any order of the Secretary of State to annul the provisions of subsection (2) of the Clause at a future date to be subject to the affirmative procedures of the House. That would be an improvement on the Bill as drafted. But this is not the moment for the Government to accord such powers, even in embryo.
We have seen beyond a shadow of doubt that the Under-Secretary of State is more concerned with saving his own face and in resisting the evidence of his eyes than in protecting the interests of the teaching profession and the interests of children at school. For that reason it would be wrong to give the Government these powers.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said on Amendment No. 23, and I would suggest that Amendment No. 24 offers an alternative and is an improvement on the Clause as it now stands.
Amendment No. 24 would ensure approval by Parliament before an order made by the Secretary of State came into effect. It would give oportunity for a full explanation by the Government on the necessity for such an order, and there could be full discussion both in this House and in the other place. We could then consider, in the light of the circumstances at that time, whether there was a real requirement for registration to be introduced for teachers in further education.
It is unnecessary, and indeed wrong, to give the Secretary of State discretion to

act without any further need to consult Parliament. Recent experience leads us to feel that the matter should be considered in the light of what has happened. If the Secretary of State felt that he wanted to introduce an order in a year or two, we should be in a much better position to consider the reasons why he felt it to be necessary and would have a chance to consider his proposal.
We see Amendment No. 24 as a reasonable provision to give the House the opportunity to consider any such proposal as the Secretary of State of the day might think necessary to deal with the registration of teachers in further education. If the Minister sees objection in Amendment No. 23, then I hope he will look favourably upon Amendment No 24.

Mr. John Robertson: Without examining the attendance list of hon. Members during the Committee stage when the registration provision was introduced, I should not like to comment upon the attitude of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) at that time. I know that nobody on the Opposition benches opposed the idea of compulsory registration when it was introduced. Indeed, I can claim that at that time I was the only member of the Committee to sound the warning. Therefore, it comes ill from hon. Members opposite to try to make political capital out of the point. All we are doing is perpetuating the difficulties.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the hon. Member recall an Amendment which was moved in Committee stage seeking exemption from registration of those with deep-rooted conscientious or religious objections? Does he not recall that that suggestion did not meet with a great deal of support from the Labour benches?

Mr. Robertson: I do not know the purpose of that intervention; I cannot understand the point. The principle of compulsory registration had the complete support of the other side of the House; indeed, it had the support of my side too. But I was the one exception, and, therefore, I claim the right to comment. It may well be that the hon. Member for South Angus was not on the Committee at that time. If he was on the


Committee, he did not raise his voice. Why stir up trouble on Report when one remembers that this provision was at the request of the teaching profession, who wished to include in the Statute the principle of compulsory registration. The proposal was not dreamed up by either Members of Parliament or the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must remind the House that the debate on registration cannot be reopened except as related to the Amendment, which is concerned with teachers in further education and the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Robertson: I was going on to relate the point. Extension is being sought to the powers, but to begin with one had to deal with the general powers.

Mr. George Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely Amendment No. 23 proposes to leave out the word "register". Does it not raise the whole controversy of whether or not there should be registration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment clearly is related to teachers in further education and the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. With great respect, that is not quite true. The first Amendment, No. 23, seeks to leave out from "education" to the end of line 23. That raises the matter of certification as opposed to registration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I must stand by my Ruling. Mr. Robertson.

Mr. Robertson: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this matter, and I accept that the Amendment deals with the extension of the Secretary of State's powers. However, I felt that the question of compulsory registration ought to be dealt with. It is obvious that, having established the principle of compulsory registration at the express request of the teaching profession, it is natural that, to complete the picture, the registration should now be extended.
I find it objectionable that hon. Members opposite at one time give wholehearted support to the principle and then

seek to object to extension of the principle. I could not accept such an Amendment.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) asked why we had subsection (2) of Clause 18 in the Bill at all. The quotation that he made from my speech in Committee explained quite admirably why we needed the subsection. It is to protect the further education teacher at the moment when there is no requirement for registration from the situation in which the protection of Section 85 would otherwise be taken away from him by the Clause.
The qualifying phrase to which he is objecting now certainly looks forward to the day when there might be an extension of registration to further education as well as to teachers in the schools. That is all that I can say at the moment. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this would go beyond what was intended by the Wheatley Committee and by the Act. It is fairly obvious that it cannot go beyond what was intended by the Act, otherwise the G.T.C. would not be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State in the first place and there could be no question of the Secretary of State accepting them. Therefore, it must have been known when the Act went through in 1965 that the extension of registration to further education was included in the terms of the Act and was a possibility. It is also clear from reading paragraph 130 of the Wheatley Report that that Committee also expected at an appropriate stage that registration would be extended to teachers in further education.
8.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would give the protection of Section 85 of the 1962 Act permanently to teachers in further education even if they became subject to registration in the same way as teachers in the schools. Obviously that is completely illogical. There is no reason why protection should persist for teachers in further education which, by this Clause, has already been taken away from teachers in the schools unless they register, as they are bound to do under the 1965 Act. Therefore, I could not possibly accept his Amendment. If it were accepted, it would mean that, if and when we extended registration to


further education, some further legislative adjustment would be required to bring teachers in further education into line with their colleagues in the primary and secondary schools.
It is true that the General Teaching Council has been considering the extension of registration to further education, but the proposals so far are not accepted by the Secretary of State. We are considering them at the moment. There are still a number of matters to be discussed. If the proposals were accepted, regulations would be required.
That brings me to Amendment No. 24. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) does not seem to understand what the Clause is saying. He suggested that it would be necessary to have his kind of Amendment to get discussion in the House of the order bringing further education teachers within the scope of registration. That is not so. It would not be the regulations or the order under this Clause that would bring in further education teachers, but regulations made under other powers. They would be regulations amending the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations, 1959–68. These regulations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. In other words, the substantive regulations which would bring further education teachers into registration would be subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
In those circumstances, having taken the substantive decision by negative procedure regulations, it would be absurd then to provide that a purely consequential Amendment concerned with the timing of the change in the law were to be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is why I could not accept the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, either.
The kind of order with which we are dealing here is simply a timing order to bring into operation something which has been discussed and decided upon by the House already. Such an order is never subject to the affirmative procedure. All the precedents are that an order of that sort is subject to the ordinary negative procedure. It is simply a consequential order about timing. It does not raise the substantive issue.

Therefore it would be completely illogical and against the rules which one normally applies for the affirmative procedure if I were to accept the Amendments.
For those various reasons, I must ask the House to reject both of them.

Mr. James Dempsey: I do not find it easy to follow the point made by the Minister about negatives, substantive regulations, affirmative procedure and one thing and another. If it becomes the intention of the Secretary of State to incorporate further education teachers in the General Teaching Council, does it mean that regulations will be laid before this House so that we can debate them?

Mr. Millan: Certainly; and these regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. That means that they can be discussed in the House, and I imagine they would almost certainly be discussed. We would have an opportunity to discuss the regulations twice. The first regulations would be discussed when they were introduced. The consequential regulations and the order involved in the Clause would also be subject to the negative Resolution procedure and, therefore, could be discussed again. To some extent at least the matter in substance on both occasions could be discussed. It could certainly be discussed in substance on the first occasion and on the second occasion it would probably be in order to cover a good part of the ground again. There is no question of anything happening in this sphere without Parliament having a full and adequate opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. MacArthur: I am certain that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining why he has advised us not to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). However, I am not satisfied with the reason that he has advanced.
The concern which my hon. Friends and I feel about the Clause is that the Secretary of State, as I understand it, could, by the negative procedure, pave the way for teachers employed in further education to be subject to the registration requirement. I understand that the Minister feels that that procedure would be adequate for Parliament to seek to debate the situation at that time, should it wish to do so. That is a reasonable


statement, but I suggest that the experience that we have had in the general matter of registration over these last months gives us on this side reason to recommend that the procedure to be followed for the implementation of the intent in Clause 18 should be subject to the affirmative proedure.
Clearly, it is possible for the Opposition or any private Member to be put in some embarrassment if a Statutory Instrument is laid during a long recess. We have had experience of this. We could find that we were not able to raise a Prayer on the Statutory Instrument until after the regulations had taken effect. That is precisely the difficulty that we encountered in the regulations which we debated at the beginning of this Session—I think early in November. By the time that the Government had made it possible for us to move our Prayer, the regulations in question were already in force although we sought to raise the Prayer within a day or two of them first being laid. That is a point to be borne in mind. That is a good reason for proposing that we should seek the affirmative procedure, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
The Minister was right to remind us that the Wheatley Report envisaged that one day the registration procedure might well extend to teachers in further education. I want to make it clear to the Minister, to the House, and indeed to people outside the House, that I have no objection in principle to that proposal. If the G.T.C. is to work as we want it to work the principle of registration must be adhered to, and it may well have to be extended in this way, but I believe that it would be a mistake for it to be extended to teachers in further education now or in the near future. I was relieved to hear what the Minister said about that a moment ago. It would be a mistake if that were to happen because the Council, and indeed the whole question of registration and the procedure of registration, has been going through what I might charitably and kindly describe as a period of growing pains.
We are faced today with a situation which I can only describe as one of extreme delicacy. I prefer not to say more than that, beyond reiterating support for the Council, my pleasure that the Secretary of State belatedly agreed that

the constitution and functions of the G.T.C. should be reviewed, and my regret that possibly many teachers have not yet re-registered as they are required to do. The fact that possibly a substantial number of teachers have not reregistered has given rise to this—

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is going far beyond either of the two Amendments on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady probably saw me edging to the forward part of my seat to intervene. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate what you say, but I am sure you will appreciate that I am trying to relate this passing reference to the reason why I do not believe it right that the principle of registration should at this time be extended to teachers in further education.
Before the right hon. Lady intervened, I was trying to explain that one reason for that is the delicacy of the position with which we are confronted today. I believe that there is some inequity here, and that is perhaps putting it mildly. I do not propose to belabour the Government about that now, but I very much hope that the Minister will shortly address himself to the problem and consider very carefully the inequity which exists.
The time may well come when registration will need to be extended as proposed in this Clause. In view of the experience that we have had, and in view of the genuine interest which every hon. Member has in the development and success of the G.T.C., and in the development of further education, I believe it right that the procedure provided for in this Clause should not be the negative procedure as the Minister claims, but should be the affirmative procedure which my hon. Friend recommends in his Amendment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) upbraided me in particular for not having opposed registration when it was first


introduced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). It is not the principle of registration to which I object; it is the way in which the Government have decided to enforce it. If I had had any idea that the Government were seriously going to attempt to bulldoze teachers into registration by threatening them with the loss of their livelihood, it would never have entered my head to do other than oppose it hook, line, and sinker.

Mr. John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the decisions of the G.T.C. were made at the direction of a Government Department, the Scottish Office? Are the Government responsible for the decisions of the G.T.C.?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We are not discussing the decisions of the G.T.C.; we are discussing the way in which the Government chose, in their wisdom or unwisdom, to attempt to enforce compulsory registration on teachers already in the profession. This was the action of the Government, not the G.T.C.
I have no objection to the principle of registration. I go along with my hon. Friend entirely in envisaging the extension of that principle to teachers in further education. What I cannot accept is the proposition that we should extend this system of bullying and blackmail, in which the Government have been indulging in the past nine months, to another large group of teachers, that we should face the possibility of another situation where we have thousands of teachers in further education, highly qualified and experienced teachers, being thrown out because they refuse to succumb to this attempt by the Government to bully them. That is the point.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member has plausibly explained that he had no method of knowing that this was to happen when he approved the principle of registration. Will he accept that the Wheatley Commission made it perfectly clear, in words of one syllable, that it was talking about compulsory registration? What did he think "compulsory" meant if it did not mean that teachers would have to join?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Wheatley Commission in paragraph 128 said:
We cannot recommend in present circumstances that it should be an offence for an unregistered person to be employed in teaching.
That, at least, to put it mildly, leaves a certain margin for uncertainty about how exactly the Government might try to enforce registration. I am prepared to admit that I should have been aware earlier of what was to be involved in this process, and to the extent that I was not I plead guilty. If I had had any idea that the Government were to go about it in this monstrous manner I should have voted against it and opposed it all the way. I suspect that some other hon. Members might have some second thoughts about it too.
We could not have expected that the Government would be as hamfisted as they have been, and we did not have quite the same experience of the Under-Secretary and his little ways as we have today. The Under-Secretary's reply was unsatisfactory even by his standards. He gave us no explanation why the particular phrase which I am seeking to delete from the subsection was inserted. He simply said that it would follow; he did not say under what circumstances the extension of registration would follow; he did not say when; he did not give any indication about the way in which an extension might be applied.
The hon. Gentleman did not even, and one might at least have expected this, acknowledge that as and when registration was extended to teachers in further education, the Government, at least learning by bitter experience, would not try to bulldoze them into registration by threatening them with the loss of their livelihood. He gave us no explanation that he had understood the unwisdom of repeating the errors which he has already committed.
The Under-Secretary of State made a very revealing comment in reply to my hon. Friend's Amendment. He said that, in any case, the implementation of the powers extended to the Secretary of State in the second part of the Clause would be purely a consequential matter—to have another few thousand teachers driven out of employment to the detriment of our institutes of further education, instead of our schools. If he calls


that a purely consequential matter, I cannot agree with him.
There is nothing to match the obstinacy of some members of the present Government when they have made a mistake and lack the honesty and courage to admit it. [Interruption.] We have had tragedy enough in this matter. We should not do anything now which might have the result of repeating tragedies of this kind, particularly while the present Ministers hold office.

Miss Herbison: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but, having listened to two discreditable speeches from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I feel obliged to intervene.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made a mistake but lacked the honesty to admit it. It would seem that in that statement he is supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I wonder what the vast majority of Scottish teachers believe? They certainly do not accept that the Government have made a mistake.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How do you know?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I made my position clear in a full speech on Second Reading. I do not depart from what I said on that occasion. I argued my case then, and I certainly did not argue it in a discreditable way. If the right hon. Lady will refer to my remarks I am sure that she will agree that I was constructive. As for any agreement that I might have with the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I assure her that I start, as I did when I made my speech on Second Reading, from the basis that qualified teachers should not have been dismissed.

Miss Herbison: I was not referring to the hon. Lady's speech on Second Reading. I had in mind what happened only moments ago when the hon. Member for South Angus accused the Government of having made a mistake and lacking the honesty to admit it. I understood that the hon. Lady said "Hear, hear" at that point.

Mrs. Ewing: Mrs. Ewing rose—

Miss Herbison: I will not give way again because it is important that we get on with this matter, which is of vital importance to Scottish education. I assure the hon. Lady that I was not referring to any speech which she made earlier.
The hon. Member for South Angus is a wonderful representative of those people in the Scottish education profession who are against the General Teaching Council. The language he uses is not unlike the language they use from time to time in Scotland, particularly his reference to "bulldozing teachers".
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will intervene to give the point of view of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. After all, he is the representative of an honourable body of people, the Educational Institute of Scotland, and when an attack has been made on the Government concerning the G.T.C., a body which has the full support of the Educational Institute of Scotland, he should put the record straight and explain that the vast majority of teachers in Scotland are in favour of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Miss Herbison: I will not give way. I would at no time use such shocking words as "bulldozing" and "blackmailing" in the context in which the hon. Gentleman used them.
If the hon. Member had read the Wheatley Report at all he would know that both sides of the House voted in favour of the recommendation for compulsory registration. As I said before, I believe that improvements must be made in the G.T.C.—most of us believe that—but because a small minority of Scottish teachers do not like it, the hon. Member apparently wishes to assume the right to stop the Government proceeding, and to accuse this Labour Government of things for which they are not responsible at all. I hope that those on the Front Bench opposite will not support their hon. Friend the Member for South Angus; and that both of these Amendments will be rejected.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of what has been said relating to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that we cannot go into the whole question of the integrity of Scottish teachers or, indeed, into the question of registration. I allowed the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) some scope to reply to a point that was made, but all hon. Members must relate their remarks to the Amendments.

Mr. Taylor: If a previous speaker was out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not mean that I, who have yet said nothing, will also stray.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise for being so suspicious.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was seeking to imply that those teachers, whether in further education or in schools, who were not prepared to register were doing so, perhaps, because of bigotry or unreasonableness, or because they were being difficult—[Interruption.] That was the whole implication of the right hon. Lady's remarks. I suggest that when we are considering the position of further education teachers we should bear in mind that some of them, perhaps a considerable number of them, may not wish to register

because they have strong, deep-rooted, conscientious or other objections to doing so.

I therefore plead with the Government that in view of what has been said, they will in another place try to avoid a very real tragedy in respect of a small number of teachers by inserting a conscience Clause in the Bill. My hon Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was absolutely right in saying that we should do all we can to avoid the same tragedy as we had in relation to ordinary teachers. Although, admittedly, only a small number of teachers are concerned, the Government should at least bear in mind the fact that some of them object to registration on principle, and, in another place, make some provision for them.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put, That the Amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 182.

Division No. 242.]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Astor, John
Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kitson, Timothy


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Emery, Peter
Lews, Kenneth (Rutland)


Awdry, Daniel
Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lubbock, Eric.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bryan, Paul
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jenkin, Partick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Doughty, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.




Pym, Francis
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wiggin, A. w.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Royle, Anthony
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wright, Esmond


Scott, Nicholas
Tilney, John
Wylie, N. R.


Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Younger, Hn. George


Silvester, Frederick
Waddington, David



Sinclair, Sir George
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dud'ey (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Weils, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Gardner, Tony
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Neal, Harold


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Norwood, Christopher


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, Albert E.


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orme, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter


Binns, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boston, Terence
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)



Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt, Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, s.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summenkill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
MacColl, James
Tuck, Raphael


Dickens, James
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Weitzman, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mapp, Charles
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Winnick, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mikardo, Ian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce



Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. John McCann and


Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Forrester, John

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall have the effect of infringing the right of a teacher who has been dismissed for failure to register or re-register to enjoy superannuation benefits which would otherwise have accrued to him on retirement.
The purpose of the Amendment is to protect the right of a teacher who has been dismissed for no other reason than failure to register or re-register with the General Teaching Council to enjoy superannuation benefits not only to the point at which he is dismissed under this bizarre procedure but to the point at which he would have retired in the normal way and become entitled to superannuation.
I see one flaw in my Amendment, in that it refers to
… benefits which would otherwise have accrued to him …
I hope that the House will accept that "her" is subsumed in "him", and that no masculine bias is intended.
I cannot now debate the merits of the manner in which a group of highly qualified and experienced teachers were sacked last year and another and much larger group are facing the threat of imminent dismissal this year. But I feel that we need clear assurances and explanations from the Government about the pension rights of these teachers, who have become the victims of the extraordinary mechanisms thought up in his bath or somewhere by the Under-Secretary of State.
The scale of the matter should be emphasised. Last year, a score of highly qualified and experienced teachers were thrown out of employment and we are now asking about their pension rights. Currently, 7,000 teachers in Scottish schools have not re-registered since 1st April and should theoretically, by the letter of the Act, already have received notices of dismissal. Perhaps even at this late stage we can hear something about this from the hon. Gentleman, although that may be too much to expect. Perhaps the Government have cold feet. They should have done by now. But we have to assume that these 7,000 teachers, or a substantial proportion of them, may be thrown out of their employment, as their fellows were last year, and it is therefore

all the more important that we should know what their rights and entitlement to superannuation will be.
Paragraph 171 of the Wheatley Report suggested that certain rights, such as those of superannuation in relation to past service, would be preserved but that teachers must become registered in order, for example, to continue within the superannuation scheme for the future. If the Government had taken the line, as Wheatley suggested, that teachers already in employment and with years of experience but who decline to register would find their superannuations suffering there-from but not their employment as such that might have been an argument worthy of serious consideration, but the position is the other way round. The Government, like all weak Governments, have attempted to wield a blunderbuss. They have preferred the technique of dismissal and in this situation the question of superannuation entitlement becomes of prime importance.
I understand that these people who have been or may be sacked will be entitled on reaching pensionable age to superannuation benefits accumulated by service up to the moment of their dismissal. But that is not good enough and I drafted the Amendment with a view to ensuring that if these people are to be sacked in this ludicrous manner, at least they should be entitled to continue to accumulate superannuation benefits as they would have done if they had been retained in employment from which they had been sacked for no character defect or shortcomings in their teaching ability until the point that they are due to receive such superannuation benefits in the normal course of events.
9.15 p.m.
I should like to think that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment, but, unfortunately, I know him better than that. Certainly we ought to have a clear explanation of what the pension position of these people is. I hope that hon. Members will feel that, in view of the circumstances of their dismissal, they should be treated in a particularly generous manner.

Mr. Millan: I could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment despite the beguiling way in which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) moved it. Teachers who are


dismissed for failure to register or reregister are in precisely the same superannuation position as teachers who leave the profession for any other reason; that is to say, if they have sufficient pensionable service to qualify for a pension, they will be entitled to receive a pension, and, if they do not, they will, like other people who leave the service, be entitled to repayment of the superannuation contributions they have made. That seems to be a very fair position and I would not recommend that we change it in any way.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that people who leave the profession because of failure to register with the General Teaching Council should be treated particularly favourably and should get privileges under the superannuation scheme which are not available to people who leave the profession for any other reason. I could not recommend that to the House.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Under-Secretary's reply was as unsatisfactory as it was expected. He said that it was only fair that these teachers should be treated in the same manner as teachers leaving the profession in any other circumstances. I do not agree. Teachers may leave the profession in all sorts of circumstances, of their own free will, or because they are guilty of some offence, or have disqualified themselves by some action which effectively diminishes their ability to teach. These people are being thrown out of the profession for no reason other than their refusal to succumb to Government bullying and threats. For those reasons they are entitled to special consideration.
I am dissatisfied with the proposition that some may not have achieved sufficient years of service to obtain a pension at the point at which this sledge hammer has been thrown at them by the Under-Secretary. In those circumstances, I should be much happier if the Amendment were included, because it would do some small thing to rectify a disgraceful injustice.

Mr. Woodburn: The teachers wanted the scheme modelled on the General Medical Council, which has the right to ensure that doctors are registered and can compel them to be so registered before they can practise. Does the hon. Gentleman propose that this scheme of his

should be applied to the medical profession as well, and should take away the rights of the General Medical Council?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that I would be in order to answer that. My answer is that, of course it is one thing to require people entering a particular profession, as doctors are required, to undertake a particular form of registration as one of the procedures involved in entering the profession. It is quite another thing not only to impose a similar obligation on people of many years' experience and qualification already in the profession, but to go around saying, "We will drum you out of the profession unless you sign on the dotted line tomorrow or the next day." That is the real point and that is where unfairness arises.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19

SCHEMES FOR REORGANISATION OF EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS: PROCEDURE, APPEAL, MAKING AND EFFECT.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 26, line 9, leave out 'subject to subsection (6) below'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 27, line 23, at end insert:
(9) Where the Secretary of State causes a draft scheme or a scheme to be published under this section, he shall cause to be prefixed to that draft scheme or scheme a memorandum setting out—

(a) the reasons why, in his view, the reorganisation of the endowment to which the draft scheme or scheme relates is necessary;
(b) the respects in which the draft scheme or scheme involves any substantial alteration of the purposes to which the said endowment is applied or applicable; and
(c) the reasons for any such alteration;

and for the purposes of the provisions of this section relating to publication, that memorandum shall be deemed to be part of the draft scheme or scheme, as the case may be.


Procedure in preparation of reorganisation schemes by Scottish Universities Committee of Privy Council by virtue of s. 118(5).
125A.—(1) Before making, by virtue of section 118(5)of this Act, a scheme for the reorganisation of any endowment the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council (hereafter in this section called 'the Committee') shall prepare a draft scheme and shall—


(a) send copies of the draft scheme to the governing body of the endowment to which the draft scheme relates; and




(b) cause the draft scheme to be published in such manner as it thinks sufficient for giving information to all persons interested in the scheme;
and the governing body of that endowment or any other person interested in the scheme may, not later than the expiry of the period of one month from the first publication of the draft scheme, send in writing to the Committee objections to the draft scheme, or proposed amendments thereto, or both.
(2) If within the period referred to in subsection (1) above no objection and no proposed amendment to the draft scheme is received by it, the Committee may make the scheme in the terms of the draft scheme published under that subsection, and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to approve the scheme so made.
(3) If within the said period objections or proposed amendments to the draft scheme are received by it, the Committee shall consider those objections and proposed amendments and may thereafter, if it thinks fit, frame a scheme in such form as it thinks expedient.
(4) If the Committee frames a scheme under subsection (3) above, it shall as soon as practicable thereafter—

(a) give to the persons who made the objections or, as the case may be, proposed the amendments to the draft scheme notice in writing of its decision with respect to those objections or amendments;
(b) send copies of the scheme to the governing body of the endowment to which the scheme relates;
(c) cause the scheme to be published in such manner as it thinks sufficient for giving information to all persons interested in the scheme;
(d) cause to be published, along with the scheme, a notice—

(i) stating that, unless not later than the expiry of the period of one month from the first publication of the scheme an appeal is presented to the Court of Session in accordance with the following provisions of this section, the Committee proposes to make the scheme in the terms in which it has been published, and that the scheme when so made may be approved by Her Majesty by Order in Council; and
(ii) drawing attention to the provisions of subsection (6) below in such a way as to inform all persons concerned of their right under that subsection to present a petition to the Committee and of the effect of their so doing.

(5) If within the period referred to in paragraph (d)(i) of subsection (4) above no appeal is presented as aforesaid to the Court of Session, or if any appeal so presented is refused by the Court, the Committee may make the scheme in the terms in which it was published under that subsection, and, subject to subsection (6) below, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to approve the scheme so made.
(6) If within the said period a petition praying that the scheme be laid before

Parliament is presented to the Committee by any of the persons mentioned below, the Committee shall cause the scheme to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, after the scheme has so lain for forty days (in reckoning which period no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), by Order in Council to approve the scheme unless within that period either House has resolved that the scheme shall not be proceeded with, in which case no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new scheme.
The persons referred to above in relation to a scheme under this section are those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 125(6) of this Act in relation to a scheme under that section.
(7) Subsection (8) of section 125 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, with the substitution, for the references to the Secretary of State and to subsections (4) to (7) and (3) of that section, of references to the Committee and to subsections (4) to (6) and (3) of this section respectively.
(8) Subsection (9) of section 125 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, with the substitution, for the references to the Secretary of State and to that section, of references to the Committee and to this section respectively.
(9) For the purposes of this section, references to an endowment shall be construed as references to a university endowment or the Carnegie Trust and references to the governing body of an endowment shall be construed as references to the founder or the governing body or the university court of any university, with respect to a university endowment, and to the Carnegie Trustees, with respect to the Carnegie Trust.
Perhaps it be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendments 29 to 31, 47, 55 and 56.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the Opposition have none. I am guided by the Opposition—unanimity.

Mr. Millan: Rather unexpected, but we have it for once.
These Amendments are necessarily lengthy and set out the procedure for the making of schemes or the reorganisation of endowments by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. When we were dealing with other Amendments in Committee to do with the reorganisation of endowment schemes I said that I did not think that we had got the provisions right for the application of the procedure for the reorganisation of the endowment schemes


of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Coucil and, therefore, we might have to put down Amendments on Report.
These Amendments are necessary to get the procedure right. The background to this is that under Section 118 of the 1962 Act and the Bill as it stands, the Scottish Universities Committee has like powers in relation to the university endowment schemes and the Carnegie Trust as the Secretary of State has in relation to educational endowments. I thought it necessary to set out in detail what the powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council were. The new Section included in the first Amendment does that. The procedure is quite similar, though not identical, to that in the new Section. The main difference is that university endowment schemes will continue to be made by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council and approved by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and educational endowment schemes will now be made by Statutory Instrument and such approval will be unnecessary.
It would be simplest if I were to say a word about each Amendment so as to get it on the record for those hon. Gentlemen who are interested. I deal first with Amendment 28. The new subsection (9) of the Section 125, which is the first part of this Amendment, reproduces the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 127 as set out in Clause 19. The previous reference is taken out by a subsequent Amendment. The new Section 125A is rather lengthy. Subsection (1) sets out the procedure to be followed by the Scottish Universities Committee in preparing a draft scheme. Subsection (2) provides for the making and approving of a scheme when no objections are sent to the Committee. Subsection (3) deals with the procedure for framing a scheme when objections or proposed amendments are sent to the Committee. Subsection (4) deals with the procedure after a scheme has been framed. It provides for the publication and circulation of the scheme and for the giving of notice that, unless an appeal under subsection (2) is presented to the Court of Session or a petition is presented to the Committee within one month of publication, the scheme will be made and approved by Order in Council.
Subsection (5) provides that when no appeal is presented to the Court of Session, or if any appeal is refused by the Court, the scheme may be made and, if the scheme is not required to be laid before Parliament, approved. Subsection (6) provides for the laying of the scheme before both Houses of Parliament if a petition is presented to the Committee. Unless either House resolves, within 40 sitting days, that the scheme shall not be proceeded with, it may be approved by Order in Council. Subsection (7) deals with the position when the Court of Session decides, on appeal, that a scheme is contrary to law. Subsection (8) provides for the publication, with a draft scheme or scheme, of a memorandum explaining its purpose. Subsection (9) defines, for the purposes of the Clause, "endowment" and "governing body".
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 30 is also a consequential drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 31 has the effect of deleting the proposed Section 127. As I have said, subsection (1) of the proposed Section 127 is included in Amendment No. 28. Subsection (2) is omitted because, in our view, it is not necessary to provide specifically for endowment inquiries. There is already provision in education legislation.
Section 68 of the 1962 Act enables the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under the Act, and in future any endowment inquiries will be held under Section 68. Therefore, no special provision is required. Amendments Nos. 47, 55 and 56 are drafting and consequential Amendments.
This is a rather elaborate matter, but it seemed better that we should lay out the procedure in full than try to deal with it by reference to the other procedure with perhaps a good deal of amendment which would make it unintelligible. The Amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 28, constitute a consecutive story of the means for reorganising the university endowments concerned, and I hope that the House will accept them.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wright: I should like the Under-Secretary of State to clarify one or two points. I accept that he warned us in Committee that he was not sure that we


were right about the application of the new procedure to the powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. In the preceding paragraph he admitted that he did not expect members of the Standing Committee to follow with absolute understanding every word of what he said. I doubt whether tonight the House followed with absolute understanding every word of what he said. For this reason, I should like to ask three questions.
I accept that the new subsection (9) is the old Clause 127. However, the Minister will appreciate that by putting it in this form he is giving to the Secretary of State, as a preliminary rôle, a function which precedes the work of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. Are we to understand that all initiative must emanate from the Secretary of State or the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council? This is an important point to which I shall return later.
I should like to get clear that this is the sequence in which action will be taken by the Minister, and not merely a descriptive piece on the processes of legislation.
Secondly, may I be absolutely clear that there is no threat to the whole question of university endowment? It is not proper for us to discuss that, but the House will understand that this is a subject in which universities are very much involved. They are all going through the process of rethinking their endowments. I imagine that one reason why the Carnegie Trust is mentioned is that this, too, is under discussion. I should like to be assured that the autonomy of universities still exists, and that this is not the thin end of the wedge of gradual erosion of university freedom.
May we be reminded about the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council? Does the Committee consist of university people or officials of the Department of the Secretary of State? I hope the Minister will not mind if I say that I would prefer it to be more strongly representative of university people than of officials of the Secretary of State.
These are basic changes. The Under-Secretary of State will accept that no mention was made of this except in the

paragraph to which he referred. I doubt whether I fully understood, for instance, that the Carnegie Trust would be included in this broad remit. This matter affects not only the original universities under the Carnegie Trust but all the new universities, since this has been the subject of legislation and of discussion in the courts. I therefore press him on the point.
I am particularly worried by subsection (9):
For the purposes of this section, references to an endowment shall be construed as references to a university endowment or the Carnegie Trust".
This is tackling the whole character of private benefaction to the universities which has continued for more than 400 years, and I should not like this to be transferred to the Secretary of State.
Finally, will the Under-Secretary assure us that there was full consultation with the universities and with the Carnegie Trust before this new Clause was introduced?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned subsection (9). I think he has misplaced that subsection, since if he looks again he will see that it comes at the end of new Clause 125 and does not come in as a preliminary to the provisions dealing with university endowments which are in Clause 125A. The Amendment consists of two pieces, but since it runs consecutively it is put down altogether. The two parts are separate, and the first part relates to the previous Clause. He can be reassured on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked who takes the initiative. The initiative is taken not by the Secretary of State but by the universities and the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. There is no change in the basic relationship, and there is, therefore, no question that these provisions will diminish university autonomy. We are simply revising the procedure for reorganisation and, I hope, making it basically simpler. I cannot off-hand explain all the points of simplification, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that we have cut down an elaborate procedure on educational endowments into a procedure which is still elaborate but not quite as bad as it was before. It is a similar kind of process with which we are dealing.
Similarly, the Carnegie Trust has already been subject to the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. There is nothing here which introduces anything new in regard to that Trust.
Obviously, these matters are discussed with the bodies concerned. I am not aware of when the discussions took place or of how elaborate they were, but I have no reason to suppose that the universities are in any way unhappy about our proposals. The general balance of initiative remains as it is at present.
The hon. Member also asked me how Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council is made up. It is a slightly complicated matter, but basically the constitution of the Committee is covered by Section 9 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889.
The Committee is not composed in the way the hon. Gentleman feared or expected. It is composed of the Lord President; the Secretary of State; the Lord Justice General, if a member of the Privy Council; the Lord Advocate, if a member of the Privy Council; the Chancellor of each of the universities, if members of the Privy Council—in many instances they will not be—the Lord Rector of each of the universities, if a member of the Privy Council; one member at least of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and such other members as may be appointed by Her Majesty. The powers and duties may be exercised by any three members, one of whom should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or one of Her Majesty's Senators of the College of Justice.
At present the three members for this purpose are the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate and Lord Guest, who is

a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They all seem eminently respectable people, and I am sure that they have very much at heart the interests of the universities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 29, in line 24, leave out from 'made' to 'in' in line 27 and insert:
'or approved under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall come into operation—

(a) except as provided in paragraph (b) below, on the date of the making of the statutory or other instrument containing, or (as the case may be) the Order in Council approving, the scheme;
(b) in the case of a scheme contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament in pursuance of section 125(6) of this Act, on such date as may be specified in that statutory instrument;

and shall have effect'.

No. 30, in line 33, leave out from 'statutory' to end of line 36 and insert:
'or other instrument containing a scheme made (otherwise than by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council), or an Order in Council or other instrument approving a scheme, under this Part of this Act'.

No. 31, in line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on Page 28.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 27

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 30, line 25, leave out from 'until' to 'and' in line 27 and insert '1st August, 1970'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 124.

Division No. 243.]
AYES
[9.37 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Anderson, Donald
Boston, Terence
Crawshaw, Richard


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston. N.)
Brooks, Edwin
Davidson, James (Abenfeenshire, W.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Davits, Ifor (Gower)


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dempsey, James


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt. Hn, Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Binns, John
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack




Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Rankin, John


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sheldon, Robert


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire. W.)


Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haseldene, Norman
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, Leslie
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley
Winnick, David


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Winstanley, Dr. M. P


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor





NOES


Allsen, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Brewis, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clirheroe)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn







Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mhigton)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Smith, John (London &amp; W'mineter)
Wiggin, A. W.


Pym, Francis
Speed, Keith
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees-Davies, w. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wright, Esmond


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Wylie, N. R.


Royle, Anthony
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John



Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Silvester, Frederick
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Anthony Grant.

Amendment proposed; No. 33, in page 30, line 36, leave out from 'until' to end of line 38 and insert '1st August, 1970'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 131.

Division No. 244.]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerry
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Joel
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Baxter, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Neal, Harold


Binns, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Boston, Terence
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Padley, Walter


Boyden, James
Hilton, W. S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Park, Trevor


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Ponypridd)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, sir Barnett
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Host, Rt. Hn. William


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dickens, James
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dobson, Ray
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McBricle, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tuck, Raphael


Ensor, David
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Istes)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.




Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Winnick, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Willis, Rt. Hn. George.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Fank (Clitheroe)


Awdry, Daniel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Niger
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Corfield, F. V.
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne valley)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wiggm, A. W.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Mitcheil, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Wright, Esmond


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 33, line 33, leave out paragraph 5.
In Committee, with the support of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) and the late Mrs. Alice Cullen, I proposed a new Clause providing that if any Scottish local authority was to reduce significantly the amount of time devoted in its curricula to religious instruction, it would be required to go through the referendum procedure provided in Section 8 of the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act. This referendum provision exists initially so that if any local authority decides to remove absolutely religious instruction

from a school curricula it will have to go through a referendum and all the electors of the county will be consulted.
When we were discussing the new Clause the Under-Secretary, in a very full reply, said in column 651:
It is a pity we are dealing with this matter as a new Clause rather than on the proposal in the Schedule for the elimination of Section 9(2) of the 1962 ACt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March 1968; c. 651.]
For this reason a Division on the new Clause did not occur.
We have tabled the Amendment to avoid the repeal, which the Government propose, of Section 9(2) of the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Taylor: When discussing the new Clause, the Minister gave several reasons, which appeared to be valid, why we should have no concern about repealing Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act. However, many people in Scotland view with conscern the removal of what appears to be a safeguard for the continuance of religious instruction in Scottish schools.
In Committee the Minister explained that Section 9(2) was introduced last century not with the intention of trying to achieve the objects which those who had tabled the new Clause had in mind. It had not been introduced, he said, for the retention of religious instruction but to protect children of minority denominations from having their secular education undermined by the holding of religious instruction at indiscriminate periods throughout the day.
On the other hand, with the passage of time, Section 9(2) has come to be regarded as a safeguard which could be operated in the event of a local authority seeking to reduce to negligible proportions the amount of religious instruction given in its schools. I am not suggesting—indeed, I have no information which would lead me to believe this—that any Scottish local authority has plans at present to take such a course.

Mr. Dempsey: If a local authority decided to reduce the amount of time devoted to religious instruction in a school, how would Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act operate as a safeguard?

Mr. Taylor: Section 9(2) says:
The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be specified in a table approved by the Secretary of State.
Thus, if a local authority at any time in the future had plans to make such a

reduction, then, if the Secretary of State was prepared to operate Section 9(2)—which calls on local authorities to submit their religious instruction timetables to him for approval—it would operate as a safeguard.
In Committee it was clearly pointed out that for many years Section 9(2) had not been used and that it was not envisaged that there would be circumstances in which it would be operated because no local authority had a proposal for such a reduction. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the peculiar situation in Scotland whereby the only safeguard we have against the removal or great curtailment of religious instruction operated by local authorities is Section 8, which will continue in existence and which says, in effect, that if a local authority seeks to remove religious instruction, there must be a referendum of the local electors. However, this is only one safeguard and I believe that the retention of Section 9(2) could be a more effective safeguard in the second event; that is, should a local authority seek to reduce religious instruction time substantially.
Earlier in Committee concern was expressed in a letter which the Archbishop of Glasgow had sent to all hon. Members of the Committee. Dated 12th February, it pointed out that Schedule 3 of the Bill proposed to repeal Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act and added:
I ask that this subsection be retained. I understand that up to present this subsection has not been observed and the Secretary of State has not been asked to approve a time table for religious instruction. It is feared that if the subsection be repealed, a Headmaster might be in a position to reduce to almost negligible proportions the time for religious instruction or observance, particularly in Schools which were not provided by the Local Authority under Section 17(2) of the 1962 Act and which are Public Schools used by Catholic children.
Concern was also expressed by members of the Church of Scotland, and the Minister indicated that discussions would be held following the Committee stage. On 30th April I asked the Minister the outcome of those discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
Representatives of the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland discussed the proposal … with officers of my Department on 20th March. They accepted the Department's assurances that the repeal of this obsolete provision would in no way jeopardise the statutory safeguards in Section 8 of the


Act, for the continuance of religious observance and instruction in Scottish schools.
That was never contested. It was never suggested that repeal would remove the essential safeguard contained in Section 8 of the 1962 Act, which stated that no local authority could stop religious instruction altogether. That has never been in doubt, and the Minister's statement was a fair statement of fact. But his Answer went on:
No further meeting has been held with the Roman Catholic authorities since the meeting of 7th February at which they expressed reservations about the proposed repeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969: Vol. 782, c. 243.]
In view of the letter we all had, the statement that no discussions had been held since 7th February, when the Roman Catholic authorities expressed reservations about the proposed repeal, causes concern.
In Committee we had another such matter, which was the Government's proposal to remove the safeguard for transfer to denominational schools. The Government then said that the provision was of no great significance or of any great relevance, but we pointed out that in the minds of the authorities it was a safeguard. The Government then readily, and courageously, admitted that they might have made a mistake, changed their minds, and retained the position. We are now dealing with something that is almost identical. This safeguard has not been used for years and it may never have to be used, but it certainly does no harm, and its retention would give comfort to a substantial number of people in Scotland. In those circumstances I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to its retention.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he has had any representations that Section 9(2) should be removed. He may think that removal is essential for tidying up purposes and that it should be done in review legislation, but I suggest that he will have had few, if any, representations to that effect from any authority or from any person.
It is important to remember the very special situation we have in Scotland, which is quite different from that in England and Wales, in respect of the provision of religious instruction, which would certainly be affected by this

Amendment. South of the Border, Her Majesty's Inspectors have a specific and statutory responsibility for ensuring that religious instruction is provided in State schools. The various G.C.E. examination boards conduct examinations in the subject. I understand that in England and Wales in 1963 about 72,000 candidates were presented for "O" level in religious knowledge, and that about 41,000 passed.
The position in Scotland is quite different. We have no inspection whatever. We are prevented by our law, for historical reasons which are important and, I think, correct, from having any inspection of religious instruction. Our teacher training regulations make no provision for training in religious instruction. We have no examinations under the old law, and the new Scottish Examination Board has not approved an examination in religious instruction. In those special circumstances, which are so completely different from those in England and Wales where there is inspection and examination, it is important that we should have this safeguard

Sir Myer Galpern: Will the hon. Member tell the House how many chaplains are specifically appointed in Scottish schools to deal with religious instruction?

Mr. Taylor: Most of the schools in Glasgow have honorary chaplains and that is the situation throughout most of Scotland. There is a move in Glasgow to try to extend the work of specialist teachers of religious knowledge A statement was made in a public speech on 19th January by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for education in England, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) that this was a time when those concerned with retaining religious instruction should "man the barricades"
Since then there has been an Adjournment debate which was promoted by the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) in which he put forward a case for abolition of religious instruction in schools. This is a matter of concern in England, but how much more signfiicant is it in Scotland where we do not have the protection of inspection and examination? This little safeguard should be retained.
The Secretary of State may say that we have protection through the local authorities, which are elected by the people, and any decision on a matter like this would have to be taken by local authorities. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) rightly said, the school chaplains perform a valuable function in the schools. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind the concern in many areas about the quality of religious instruction. Many hon. Members who were at school 25 years ago will be concerned about the way in which time for religious instruction in the curricula is used. In some places it is used splendidly, but in others it is used merely for swotting for examinations. This is not to be encouraged.
The Secretary of State said that a committee had been appointed under Professor Miller to review the whole question of religious instruction in schools. We await its findings with interest. In view of the concern expressed by an important church in Scotland, the concern by the religious instruction subcommittee of Glasgow Education Committee, which decided unanimously that the safeguard should be retained, and in view of the growing ground swell of the Humanist movement in our community, this safeguard should be kept.
The Secretary of State might say that it is not a great safeguard, but it does allow him to call for time-tables and to approve or disapprove them. To that extent it is a safeguard. If he thinks it is not an ideal or important safeguard and that it would not be of real value if it came to the crunch, would he be prepared at a future stage to insert some other safeguard? The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), the late Mrs. Cullen and I put forward an alternative. I hope that the Government will propose another one if they are not to keep the provision of Section 9(2). The Government would be well advised to leave things as they are. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This is not a party matter in any sense. It is of great importance to many people in Scotland, irrespective of their political

allegiance. The present practice should be continued, because there is a good deal of flexibility. If teachers are not prepared to give religious instruction, they are not forced to do so, but there are enough teachers in Scotland who are sufficiently interested in religious education and are more than willing to give such instruction.
What we really want are the necessary safeguards, and I am very pleased to see the Secretary of State on the Front Bench opposite, because I know his interest in these matters. If he is prepared to give us an assurance that all will be well, that religious teaching will be safeguarded, that the necessary time will be devoted to it, and that the time allocated to the subject will never be reduced to negligible proportions, I, and I think my hon. Friends, will support him. I shall be very interested in what he has to say.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I should like to add my support to the Amendment, because I think that it is widely regarded as a safeguard. The provision may not be called into use very often, but there is no doubt from the volume of correspondence that I and I am sure other Members, including the Secretary of State, have had, that this is a matter about which many people feel deeply. It strikes at the heart of much of the history of the whole of Scottish education, and it is worth while paying particular attention to this.
I received a letter in this evening's post from a teacher in what she describes as the largest primary school in Europe. It is certainly the largest in Glasgow. She expresses very well the anxiety felt not only by the many parents who have written to us but by the many teachers who do so much to make the religious instruction in schools worth while.
It is also important to remember that we have all had a letter from the Archbishop of Glasgow pointing out the strength of feeling in his community. I doubt whether any other Scottish Member has been convenor of a Catholic school for more than 10 years. My close association with education in those days has made me fully aware of the importance of religious instruction in such


schools. The link between the church and the school in every town and village in Scotland in this respect is remarkably impressive, and should be retained. We should pay attention to people when they feel as strongly as they do in this connection.
I know that the Church of Scotland feels more confident about the continuance of its educational opportunities in the schools. But if it does, that is partly because of the system of appointing chaplains, which is much more universally accepted by the Church of Scotland than it is in the Catholic schools.
Those concerned with Catholic education in Scotland, which has a long and honourable history, should recognise that if this safeguard, as they regard it, is to be removed a very strong assurance is required from the Secretary of State, or, better still, an alternative provision in the Bill should be accepted. I urge the right hon. Gentleman most strongly that this be done.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully what has been said in favour of the Amendment. All changes are not necessarily good and I cannot see why this provision was ever included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it has caused a great deal of concern. I have had many letters from constituents on the subject. I do not know whether they are Roman Catholics. It is impossible to tell. But they have expressed concern and they are right to do so.
There may be nothing sinister about this provision but it looks as though perhaps it is something sinister at a time when there is so much humanist talk about and also when everyone is aware of the dangers of the permissive society. Surely that sort of time is the very last time in which a change should be made which seems to undermine religious instruction in schools.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that he will at least say that he will reconsider the matter and see what can be done at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: It would be unfortunate if this debate were to conclude without the other side of the coin being presented. I was brought up in a very religious home. I was given and I myself gave religious instruction in school and I would deprecate failure to give religious instruction to children of school age and above. But I doubt whether school is the right place to do it. There is a strong case for regarding this duty as that of the parents and of the churches, and I must say that the letters I have received have been few in number. Some have expressed the view that children ought not to be put in the position of having to be taken out of religious instruction because the parents object to their having it in school. That kind of situation can be disastrous for the balance of the child. Its temperament may be disturbed by being singled out because of the prejudices—if you like—of the parents.
This could be avoided by not making it obligatory on education authorities to have religious instruction in the schools. I repeat that I quite see, as we all do, that moral and ethical standards should be taught to children, and it need not necessarily be called religious instruction and need not, indeed, be based on biblical teaching. In my experience in schools, very often the religious instruction has not been based on biblical teaching. Often, people giving religious instruction or presumed to be giving it were in fact simply teaching moral standards, teaching the children how to behave as decent human citizens without reference to biblical connotations of any kind.
We should be very careful not to seek to brain-wash children at this or any age without their being in a position to challenge what is being taught. The word "sinister" has been used and it could be used on both sides of the argument. We should be very careful before we seek to do this sort of thing to children. If their parents feel sufficiently strongly about the matter, they will see that, outside school hours, the children are given such religious instruction as they think right and proper to give them, and that should be in the home and in the church to which the parents belong.

Mr. Dempsey: I was not a member of the Committee when this matter was discussed, but I have paid close attention to the benign views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). However, I am sure that he would be the first to admit that not all parents are as responsible and as thoughtful as he is about religious tuition. I am sure that he would also be the first to admit that one of the most important subjects to be taught in any school is the subject of the Law of God. I can think of many other subjects which are not so nearly important as the subject of believing in the Almighty and understanding His ways.
I am not evangelising, but I say sincerely that when on a Sunday I am coming home from my church and I see people who never move out of the door on a Sunday and who never send their kiddies to church, I am convinced that if these children had to depend on religious instruction in churches, many of them would never even hear of the Word of God. I often say that but for the evangelist on a Sunday, in my own part of the country some of the children would not know that God existed.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: So what?

Mr. Dempsey: So what? We have to get back to God. If we believe, and I hope that we do, that the Law of God and the Word of God and the Deeds of the Almighty are important to the life of our community and our society, I can think of nothing more important at the present time. It is our duty to teach the children in school, in church, in the home, and in all other places, and I hope that the House will approach the problem from that point of view.
Why is this safeguard in process of being removed? The present Secretary of State for Scotland is a man of great integrity and character and acknowledged to be one of the most religious persons not only in the House, but in Scotland. I am convinced that he would be the last ever to submit or condescend to reducing the amount of religious instruction in schools. I make that absolutely clear. I am therefore anxious to ascertain what has led him to take

this view, and that is the problem with which I am trying to wrestle.
Is he completely satisfied that this provision is unnecessary? This is what we all want to know. Ministers change and next month he may be the Foreign Secretary for all we know and we may have a new Secretary of State for Scotland. We therefore have to legislate with a degree of security about the teaching of religious instruction in the schools. This is the view which I have strongly held all my life, not only since I came to the House of Commons, but when I was a boy. Even before my school days I believed in religious instruction. I have tried to see that my children got religious instruction at school, that they went to church and had it there, and we ensured that they had it at home. It moulds their character and makes them fine citizens.
Both churches in Scotland have some degree of reservation about this provision. Both have met my right hon. Friend. One has accepted his assurances and the other has had some reservations. They have obviously been co-operative with Governments and local authorities and there must be some valid reason why they are uncertain about the need for the removal of this safeguard.
The alternative suggested has been a referendum among parents. Time after time the House has rejected referenda as a system of assessing the opinions of the people of Scotland. We rejected a proposal for a referendum only a few weeks ago and I am surprised that there is talk of a referendum as a possible safeguard.
I know for a fact that the churches are now spending a considerable sum on training clergymen to be full-time chaplains. Only recently I met one who was training at a college in London to be a full-time chaplain to play his part in moulding the minds and opinions and characters of young people as an antidote for society in general against vandalism and hooliganism and the other ugly experiences of a minority of young people in this country.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend like to cite the evidence to support his assertion that the teaching of religious instruction has any effect on the social behaviour of young people? Having looked at this matter in some detail, I


assure him that there is no evidence. If he looks at the evidence of young people going to Catholic schools, where the level of religious instruction is very high, he will find that there is a much higher delinquency rate among those groups than among children who receive very little religious instruction.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: If my hon. Friend approaches the matter from another point of view and considers the percentages of people committing acts of violence and other crimes, he will find that those who have been taught religion are much better behaved. I could take him to a place where there is deep religious tuition, and one could leave anything a mile outside the town and go back later and get it. Nobody would dream of touching it simply because the people there always remember the Ten Commandments, which are extremely important in moulding the characteristics of young people. In the area from which I come the converse is the case. The cause which leads the majority of people to misbehave and misconduct themselves is bad parenthood. There is a parental problem here because the children are not taught right from wrong at home or anywhere else.
Let us be fair and frank. Surely we all agree that religious tuition cannot do any harm, but must do some good. I believe that my right hon. Friend has no intention of reducing the amount of religious instruction in schools. If he has no such intention, and he decides to remove this safeguard, would he say what he intends to put in its place? This is extremely important. This could be a fateful decision in the history, not only of Scotland, but of the rest of the United Kingdom. Everyone should declare his interest. I get letters from all sort of people and of all denominations asking me to give them an undertaking. I shall strive with might and main to retain religious instruction in the schools.
From the Midlands I was asked to become a patron of a society formed to retain religious instruction in the schools. It is non-denominational. I believe in Christian religion and Christian instruction in the schools. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that there is no danger of religious education being interfered

with by any Secretary of State or any Government in this country.

Mr. Ross: I am crowded down by a sense of Scottish history, and I must contain myself about religious education in Scottish schools. The Church of Scotland was built up on the basis that the State had no hand in it. It claims the great privilege of being a national church and yet a free church. The expressions of the history of the development of the church are there equally in respect of my powers concerning religious education in the schools. I am an instrument of the State. This is why there is a difference between the position in Scotland and the position in England.
I have no power to hold examinations in Scottish schools. But all these things are written in history and no one has tried to change them and no one has suggested that we should change them. The real safeguard for Scottish religious education is in Section 8 of the Education Act, 1962, not Section 9, and I assure hon. Members that this Secretary of State will not tamper with it. If hon. Members on both sides had been paying attention to what we have been doing about this matter since we became the Government, they will have noted that, because I was dissatisfied with the quality of religious education in schools, I set up a Committee to go into it and to advise me on ways of improving it.
Fifteen representations in favour of the preservation of religious observance and instruction have been received by my office in the last eight weeks. They have all been in general terms, with no mention of Section 9(2). I am sure that the writers have been disturbed by general discussion of this matter here, rather than in relation to anything that has happened in Scotland.
I make it quite clear that I would not have taken the decision to leave out paragraph 5 if in any way it removed a safeguard for religious education in Scottish schools. We have heard speeches by three hon. Members who have been members of local education authorities. Who are supposed to send timetables to the Secretary of State of Scotland for approval? The answer is the local authorities. They have never sent any such timetables. As for the education authority of which the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was a member, no request for approval of timetables has been seen over the last 20 or 30 years. What kind of safeguard is this? It just has not been used.
Why was it put in? It was put in because of the situation which I described earlier. Section 9 is called the conscience clause. Every public school and grant-aided school in Scotland is open to pupils of all denominations and any pupil may be withdrawn by his parents for any instruction in religious subjects.
I remember that when I was a boy at school some of the pupils did not appear for the bible period. The requirement in respect of timetables was that they should be approved for religious instruction, and there did not seem to be an undue loss of secular education concerning the times at which religious instruction was given. It was not a safeguard for religious instruction, but a safeguard for those who did not want religious instruction.
It should not be suggested that this provision provides a safeguard for the maintenance of religious instruction. The safeguard for the maintenance of religious instruction is in Section 8, and in respect of education authorities there is a statutory requirement about who shall be members. Included in the ad hoc committee of the education authority are members of both the main denominations of Scotland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic communities.
There has been a great deal of misleading information as to what is intended and what will be the effect. If this really were a safeguard then hon. Members would have been demanding, long before I was Secretary of State, that their local authorities should send timetables to the Secretary of State for approval and that they should be approved by him. Local authorities have never done so. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart never even knew of its existence until he saw this Schedule. This is a strange kind of safeguard, if indeed it is a safeguard at all. No timetables have been submitted or approved for many years. The provision is in complete disuse.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the safeguard lies in the fact that any parent

who wishes to complain that religious instruction is not being included in the curriculum can go to one of the committees—the parents' committee or the convenor of the school or whoever it is—and say that this is not being done so that the safeguard can be brought into operation and the matter referred to the Secretary of State. This is how I, as a local authority member, always regarded it. I have always regarded the fact that it was never used as part of the fact that it remained a safeguard.

Mr. Ross: The words are perfectly clear:
The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school"—
that is the 3,000 schools in Scotland—
shall be specified in a table approved by the Secretary of State.
It is a statutory responsibility placed upon those in control of the schools to send it to the Secretary of State for approval, and it is for the Secretary of State to approve or disapprove it. There has been no case of any of these tables being sent to the Secretary of State over the last 20 or 30 years. It should be a matter for approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite who, like myself, have been concerned about the continuing efficacy of religious education in schools, that this safeguard to allow children to be withdrawn from religious education is no longer being used.
As the Joint Under-Secretary of State indicated in Committee, it is significant that it is included in the conscience clause. Its inclusion there was intended to separate religious from secular instruction, and to regulate the time during which religious instruction was given, or religious observance practised, in order that dissenting parents could exercise their right to withdraw their children.
In Glasgow, religious instruction took place between 9 o'clock and 9.30 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, it was temperance, morals and manners. I know it, because I taught it. Certainly no one in my classes ever withdrew from religious instruction. They knew that it was the right thing to be done.
I think that there is and should be more concern about the quality of religious instruction taught in our secondary


schools, but that is not affected by the Amendment. It was not, as has sometimes been suggested, designed to provide a safeguard against any attempt by an education authority or a head teacher to curtail the time set aside for religious instruction. Nor, indeed, has it ever been invoked for this purpose. The real safeguards for religious observance and instruction are in Section 8 of the 1962 Act and in the education authorities themselves.
My officials have discussed the proposed repeal of Section 9(2) with the Roman Catholic hierarchy and representatives of the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland. The letter from the Church of Scotland following these discussions reads:
In the first place I should have written to thank you for receiving Dr. Bigwood and myself on the 20th March to discuss the clarification of the intention to repeal subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962. Dr. Bigwood has asked me to say how much he appreciated the courteous way in which we were received, and I personally am very grateful to you and your colleagues for the consideration you gave to our representations. So our reassurances were accepted. If it is acceptable to the Church of Scotland I do not think it can be suggested that what we are doing is so deleterious to religious education in Scotland.
The Roman Catholic authorities, at a meeting on 7th February, expressed reservations about the repeal. It is, however, fair to point out that the statutory safeguards for religious instruction and observance in denominational transferred schools—and the Roman Catholic schools of Scotland are dealt with by the local education authority since we are much more enlightened than south of the Border—are to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
10.45 p.m.
Religious education is carried on, and the safeguard is in Section 21 of the 1962 Act which makes it clear that the time set apart for religious instruction in any such schools
shall not be less than that so set apart according to the use and wont of the former management of the school.
There are also provisions for the appointment of supervisors of religious instruction, without remuneration, and

so on. This has always been satisfactory to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and is today, and we have applied de facto to the schools which have been built since then exactly the same circumstances in relation to religious instruction.
I do not want anyone to raise—and I hope that no one in Scotland will—this false point about an attack on religious instruction in Scottish schools. That is not the case. The membership of the committee which has been set up is, I think, such as to command a certain measure of confidence in its ability to look realistically into the matter, and I hope that following the advice which I shall receive from it we shall be able to make provision for improving the quality of the religious education in schools.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in these matters, and I hope that he will appreciate mine, too, but in the light of that explanation I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I asked four questions, and we have not received the clarification that we require. The right hon. Gentleman said that the real safeguard lay in Section 8 of the 1962 Act, which contains a provision for a referendum in the event of the total withdrawal of religious instruction. Subsection (2) contains a slight safeguard against reducing the amount of religious instruction to negligible proportions. If Section 9(2) goes, what safeguard will there be against a local authority some time in the distant future reducing the amount of time allowed for religious instruction to negligible proportions—not withdrawing it; reducing it to negligible proportions?
Section 9(2) provides a slight safeguard. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is no safeguard. If it is no safeguard at all, why is it that all the appointed members from the churches in the Glasgow Education Committee area unanimously asked for it to be retained? If it is not a safeguard, why do the Archbishop of Glasgow and the Roman Catholic authorities wish it to be retained? Are they wrong, and have they no grounds for concern?
Next, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, not the question of denominational schools, where there is full protection under Section 21, but the position in those areas where there are no denominational schools and where Roman Catholic children have to go to ordinary State schools? What protection will there be for the religious instruction of these children if the time is reduced? This was the principal point in the Archbishop's letter.
The last thing in the world that we want is a vote on an issue like this. I want to avoid it at all costs, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear those matters in mind? What protection is there against a local authority reducing the time for religious instruction to negligible proportions? Once Section 9(2) goes, what protection will there be?

Mr. Ross: What protection is there in approving or disapproving time tables? I cannot force timetables upon them. It is not within my power as Secretary of State so to do. What happens if I disapprove? Let us follow this through.

Mr. Younger: I presume that if they are obliged to submit a programme for the right hon. Gentleman's approval and he disapproves that programme they have not carried out the undertaking laid down in the Act?

Mr. Ross: They have not done that for 30 years.

Mr. Younger: They have not been asked to.

Mr. Ross: It is not because they have not been asked to. This is a statutory requirement, but they have not done so for 30 years. We are getting on to some false points. This was something to allow it so to be arranged that people could withdraw their children from religious instruction without any effect on their secular education. It was for their consideration that this was done. But there has been no demand for this provision, because parents have not withdrawn their children from religious instruction. [Interruption.] I am talking about Scotland. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) may smile about England, but we have a different set of standards in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asks what the safeguard is. I return to the point that it is in Section 8, and in the quality of local authorities. We must appreciate that point and maintain their quality. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will fully appreciate that.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has done us a good service in making clear that there is no attack upon religious education in Scottish schools; nor is there likely to be. That being so, I hope that he will not cloud the issue by creating a division where there is no need for one.

Mr. Galbraith: Why does the right hon. Gentleman introduce this change? Why not leave things as they are?

Mr. Ross: Because this is obsolete. No one has been sending me these timetables. Why clutter up the law in this way?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am not happy with the reply of the Minister. We have had an assurance, but I am not happy. I put down the Amendment on my own and I am grateful for the support that I have received from my hon. Friends. Although I am not happy, it would be very unfortunate to have a vote on the matter, and with a great deal of reservation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 34, line 5, at end insert:
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from 'training' to the end there shall be substituted the words education or training provided by the authority under section 1(3) of this Act, articles of clothing suitable for such physical education or training'.
This is a minor drafting Amendment to paragraph 7 of Part I of the Schedule. It brings the wording of subsection (3) of Section 11 of the 1962 Act into line with the wording used elsewhere.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 34, line 22, after 'authorities)', insert—(a).
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 37 and 48. All three go together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Millan: The Amendments provide for the repeal of subsection (2) of Section 15 of the 1962 Act. That subsection empowers the Secretary of State, after due inquiry, to issue an order transferring an endowed school to the education authority for the area, provided that the annual revenue of the school is less than £1,000. This provision was originally made in the Act of 1908, at a time when intermediate and secondary education was being developed. It presumably served the dual purpose of enabling the Department to put the smaller and less efficient endowed intermediate and secondary schools out of business and of providing the school boards with school buildings which they would otherwise have had to provide themselves.
If that was the purpose, it is not relevant to present-day standards. I am sure that no hon. Member would expect us compulsorily to transfer any endowed school to the education authority for the area concerned. It would not make any sense to try to bring this up to date by putting in a different figure from £1,000. It is completely obsolete.
For that reason these Amendments eliminate this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 37, in page 34, line 23, at end insert:
(b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Millan.]

No. 38, in line 32, at end insert:
(a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 34, line 36, leave out
'school, junior college or other'.
With the leave of the House, I suggest that with this Amendment we also discuss Amendments Nos. 40, 41, and 42.
The effect of these purely drafting Amendments is to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) during the Committee stage. They omit references to schools and junior colleges from the revised subsections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the 1962 Act contained in paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, and are thus intended to

achieve consistency of wording in the Section as amended. Subsections (3) and (4) as amended will refer to 'educational establishments' instead of 'schools, junior colleges or educational establishments'. Since the definition of 'educational establishment' in Section 145 of the Act includes schools and junior colleges, the Amendment involves no substantive change.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 34, line 39, leave out 'school, college or'.

No. 41, in line 41, leave out 'schools, junior colleges and'.

No. 42, in line 46, to leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 35 and insert:
(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(4) Where the premises or equipment of any educational establishment under the management of an education authority do not conform to the standards or requirements applicable to that establishment or are not maintained as mentioned in subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the authority, direct that the premises or equipment be brought into conformity with the said standards or requirements or into the state of maintenance mentioned in that subsection (as the case may be) within a period to be specified in the direction; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'

No. 43, in page 35, line 5, at end insert:
13. In section 20 (acquisition of land and execution of works), in subsection (1), after the word 'may' there shall be inserted the words 'subject to the provisions of subsection (1A) below,'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 35, leave out lines 6 to 11.
I would suggest that with this Amendment we also discuss Amendments No. 49 and 51 in Schedule 3.
These Amendments are consequential on the decision of the Standing Committee to remove Clause 3 as originally presented; that is, the Clause which repealed Section 16 of the 1962 Act which relates to the transfer of denominational schools to education authorities. The reference to Section 16 in Sections 21 and 22 of the 1962 Act, which respectively


set out the privileges accorded to transferred schools and provide for their discontinuance, are restored, and Section 16 is removed from the list of enactments repealed in Schedule 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 35, line 23, leave out paragraph 16.
With the permission of the House I would also discuss at the same time Amendment No. 52.
The effect of these Amendments is to preserve the existing wording of Section 27 of the 1962 Act which gives education authorities power to conduct or assist the conduct of educational research. The present Amendment to Section 27 deletes the words,
'or assisting the conduct of'.
This Amendment was made on the assumption that the words were unnecessary since the new Section 25 set out in Clause 5 gives an education authority power to make payments to any person to assist the carrying out of educational research. On reflection, however, we think that a power to make payments is too narrow. An authority might assist research, not by making payments, but by making facilities available; for example, facilities such as schools. It is not absolutely clear that that kind of assistance would be covered if we deleted those words. Therefore we have reinstated them here. This is an enhancement of the local authority's powers.

Amendment agreed to.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 46, in page 37, line 16, at end insert:
32. Section 98 (service of notices) shall cease to have effect.
With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 53, if the House agrees.
These Amendments provide for the repeal of Section 98 of the 1962 Act. That Section set out the procedure for serving notices or other documents under the Act. However, Clause 24 of the present Bill provides for the service of notices under the Bill, and under the principal Act, and we no longer require Section 98 of the 1962 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 47, in page 37, line 19, leave out from 'words' to end of line 22 and insert:
'"and—

(a) except as mentioned in paragraph (b) below, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for that purpose;
(b) section 125A of this Act shall apply in place of section 125 thereof in relation to the procedure to be followed by the Scottish Universities Committee in preparing a scheme under this Part of this Act."'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 3

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 42, line 39, column 3, at end insert ', and subsection (2)'.

No. 49, leave out line 40.

No. 50, in line 45, column 3, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (2) and'.

No. 51, leave out lines 46 to 52.

No. 52, in page 43, column 3, leave out lines 3 and 4.

No. 53, in line 23, column 3, at end insert Section 98.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 45, line 40, at end insert:
(2) In this paragraph the expression 'local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
Provided that until section 1(4) of the said Act of 1968 comes into operation the expression 'local authority' shall mean a local health authority within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (including a joint committee or board constituted under section 20 of that Act).

No. 55, in page 46, line 6, leave out from 'made' to 'of' in line 8 and insert:
'or approved under the corresponding provision of Part VI'.

No. 56, in line 10, after 'State', insert:
'or the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council'.—[Mr. Millan.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I said in moving the Second Reading, I regard this as a valuable Bill which recognises that the reforms and developments which are constantly


taking place in education and in educational practice must be reflected in statute. The only provision that has provoked long discussion is that which will do away with fee paying in schools run by education authorities in Scotland as from 1st August, 1970.
I do not propose to rehearse the arguments in favour of this very necessary change. They have been fully covered on Second Reading and in Committee. We on this side of the House have no doubt that the continuance of fee paying in education authority secondary schools is undesirable in itself and impossible to reconcile with the Government's aim of comprehensive secondary education, or with Scotland's tradition of education. It would be unfortunate, however, if this Bill were regarded solely as the Bill that did that—abolish fees in about 20 Scottish schools or in the three Edinburgh and five Glasgow secondary schools on whose future the arguments on this provision have mainly turned. It is concerned with much more than that—with the education of all our children and young people.
One of the most important Clauses is Clause 10 which sets out in detail a new and improved procedure for the ascertainment of children requiring special education or who are so severely handicapped that they cannot be educated and trained at all. In devising this new procedure we have had two main principles in mind—to safeguard the interests of these unfortunate children and to ensure that their parents are fully informed and given specific rights to appeal to the Secretary of State when decisions are taken. In all this we are not imposing on education authorities a new attitude to these proposals or a new relationship with the parents of handicapped children. We are trying to ensure as far as we can by statute that all attain the high standards of sympathetic concern and careful ascertainment which the best of them already practise.
The new power in Clause 15 to prescribe the constitution and functions of the governing bodies of grant-aided colleges by regulations will enable us to modernise more quickly and effectively the constitutions of our central institutions. It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to repeat that we shall consult the existing

governing bodies of central institutions before the new regulations are drafted. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said on Report, preliminary consultations are already in train.
I do not propose to go through all the other provisions of the Bill in detail. It takes account of the changes which are taking place in education, recognising the essential unity of school education and accepting that a child guidance service is now a necessary part of the provision in many areas. I express my thanks to those hon. Members who paid particular attention to efforts to improve the Bill. They were not always successful in having accepted what they thought were the right ideas, but I thank them, and I commend the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State, whose work has been arduous and whose ability to clarify obscure issues has been a constant advantage to the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall state again, fairly briefly, on Third Reading, that we object strongly to the proposal in Clause 1 in which the Government are deliberately attempting to abolish the category of local authority fee-paying schools. We have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we are strongly opposed to the wanton destruction of this category of schools which over many years have built up standards and traditions of excellence in education in Scotland. It is easy to destroy what is good or outstanding, but it takes effort and work over many years to create or re-create.
During the passage of the Bill, I am sorry to say, the Government have made this provision even worse, because on Report stage they have written into the Bill a date, just over a year's time, by which, if the Bill is enacted in this form, the abolition of these schools will be automatic instead of the matter being left to an order which the Secretary of State might or might not bring forward later. This means that if the Bill is enacted in this form, fee-paying schools are due to be abolished on 1st August, 1970, no matter what happens in the meantime, for example the arrival of another Government with different views.
This will happen unless there is amending legislation, and I therefore state categorically that the next Conservative


Government will introduce that amending legislation in order to restore the tight to local authorities to charge fees if they wish to do so. The choice will again be at the discretion of the local authorities.
We are opposed to the attempt to impose a uniform pattern of education on all areas and all local authorities in Scotland. Different combinations and a different organisation are appropriate to different areas in Scotland. For example, in some rural areas where there is a scattered population the best arrangements are often different from what is appropriate to cities and large towns.
It is schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow which are now threatened by this Bill. The whole nature of these schools will be changed. It is beyond doubt that the Government are determined to stamp out this kind of school. Naturally there is selection, but it is based on the ability of the pupils alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has demonstrated, the parents of these pupils come from just about every occupation. The Secretary of State must be aware of the widespread opposition in Edinburgh and Glasgow to what he is proposing in the Bill. That opposition comes from all sections of the community.
It is depressing to think that Parliament should be asked to pass a Measure aimed at deliberately extinguishing schools which have achieved the highest standards of excellence in education, schools with outstanding records of achievement. We in Scotland cannot afford to throw away such assets. We have resources of brains and ability. They should not be deprived of some of the opportunities that are now available to them.
The Bill is not only bad for Scotland—remembering that to a great extent we shall in future depend on our young people of today and tomorrow—but it gives a misleading impression that in Scotland we do not value the excellence of education. The people of Scotland have always valued excellence in education and they will not willingly jettison it for doctrinaire reasons. We need to encourage establishments that can do so much for our promising young people, for Scotland's future will be largely in

their hands in the coming years. We cannot allow the Government's philistine and destructive designs to pass without the strongest protest.
On the payment question, in Glasgow it amounts to £25 a year. This is not an inhibiting factor, being equivalent to two packets of cigarettes a week.
I repeat that the next Conservative Government will introduce the necessary amending legislation to restore the rights of local authorities to charge fees if they so wish. In the meantime, we thoroughly deplore the Government's attitude.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I completely refute the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). It is nonsense to say that the selection of pupils for these schools is made on merit alone. In any event, the inference is that all the others who do not get to these schools do not have merit. One must consider the question of parents who wish to pay the fees but whose children do not have the merit and of the children who have the merit but whose parents do not wish to pay the fees. This proves that many children are excluded from these schools, which means that there is no justification in the hon. Gentleman's argument that selection is based on merit alone.
Moreover, in arguing in the way he does, the hon. Gentleman condemns the schools throughout Scotland, schools which have produced students who have gone to every part of the world and have distinguished themselves and Scotland. Many of those who take the hon. Gentleman's point of view never went to Scottish schools. I did not attend a Scottish fee-paying school. I was educated at a public school, in the Scottish use of the phrase, and the education provided at that and the other schools throughout Scotland was and is in no way inferior to the education provided in any school in Britain. That applies to a great many of our Scottish public schools, from which the great majority of Scots have come, and many of whom have then gone, to our nation's credit, to places all over the world. To seek to put a slur on them by saying that the only people of distinction have come from the few fee-paying schools is a disgrace to those who do so.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt unwittingly, saying what I did not say. I did not say that all the people of distinction come from certain schools, but I did say that those schools have made a remarkable contribution to Scottish education.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I cannot let the no doubt well-intentioned remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) pass without saying that he spoke with great sincerity but totally off the whole point of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). If one is trying to make a point, it is the simplest thing in the world to do so by demolishing an argument that has never been put forward. I could do the same thing, but I do not propose to waste the time of the House in doing so.
I agree with the Secretary of State that it would be a pity if the Bill were to be thought of only as destroying the fee-paying schools. There is much in it that is good. I refer particularly to the improved arrangements for assessing and dealing with handicapped children.
I support what my hon. Friend has said about the truly deplorable move to destroy the right of local authorities to have fee-paying schools if they so wish. After what has gone on earlier, it is strange to find a complete somersault by the Treasury Bench. In reply to Amendments moved from this side, Ministers have said again and again that it is good that local authorities should be able to decide matters for themselves. They have asked why we cannot leave the local authorities to decide about religious education, and all the rest. Then we have the somersault, and it is suddenly wrong for local authorities to decide in favour of fee-paying schools. I can assure the Government that they have not heard the last on that point.
What about the financial effects of the Bill? Here we have a Government which can afford to do hardly anything, now throwing away £¼ million. Plenty of things that need to be done in Scotland could be done with that amount of money. The Secretary of State chooses this time to take £¼ million out of the education service. Is he so rich, so well endowed,

so well able to look after the needs of the country that he can afford to throw back such a sum to those who are willing to pay it? I am sure that he can look forward in the next few months to suggestions about how £¼ million could be used in various ways in Scotland.
What about the removal of choice? The Government may think that they have got away with the Bill, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite to put themselves in the position of parents living in one of those parts of Scotland which are desperately short of teachers, where the schools are inadequate, and schooling is only part-time. If their child is academically bright, those parents at present at least have the chance, be it large or small, of getting that child into a school where the teaching and the amount of education will be adequate to get it to university. After the Bill is enacted, that chance will have gone. The child will have to stay at the school to which it is allocated, even if the staff is inadequate and the education is only part-time.
Where is the equality there? The only solution these parents will have is to move to one of the areas where education is good. Where can they find money to do that? It is all right if a parent is well-off. Then he can buy a house in Bearsden where education is better, but these parents cannot do that. This will be the effect of destroying the fee-paying schools. The people it will hit will be those who have not the means to move from council houses and from areas where education is not so good.
I hope that the Government will realise that they should change their priorities of spending to bring schools up to the staffing standards we need. No doubt they have impressed on themselves that this is a great reforming Measure, but I think it means a reduction in the quality of education which can be offered. It is certainly a reduction in freedom of choice and a steam-rollering of local authorities which wish to run schooling in a different way from that of the Secretary of State. This is a very irrelevant vicious and destructive Measure which has been opposed by many thousands in the cities and by the Opposition. It should be opposed by everyone until local authorities are given back the freedom to have these schools if they wish. I am certain the Government will regret this action.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Willis: As a Member for one of the constituencies in the city most affected, I wish to speak about fee-paying schools. Edinburgh has probably more fee-paying schools than any other town in the country. If all the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite in favour of fee paying are sound, for heaven's sake let them get back to their areas and advocate it there—in Moray and Nairn, or Ayrshire, for instance. Areas outside Edinburgh and Glasgow do not have these schools, but are people in those areas at a disadvantage? If so, hon. Members opposite should be fighting for them.

Mr. Younger: I am sure that the right hon. Member would want to be fair. I advocate that local authorities everywhere should have the right to fee-paying schools if they wish to have them.

Mr. Willis: In the last six months I have not read any speeches by hon. Members opposite directed to their local authorities telling them of the great benefits to be derived from this form of education. It is a comment on the paucity of policy of hon. Members opposite that they should go to the barricades almost on this one issue. This is the sole educational issue on which they are prepared to go to the barricades. What is the issue?

Mr. MacArthur: Freedom.

Mr. Willis: Why does the hon. Member not fight for freedom in his constituency? Leave Edinburgh alone; we shall fight for freedom in Edinburgh. The freedom hon. Members opposite talk about is that a small minority of people should be allowed to continue to purchase an educational cachet for their children which will exempt them from most of the undesirable tasks in society. That is what hon. Members opposite are fighting for.
Those people are obtaining that educational privilege at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The poor people that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—I have thousands of them in my constituency—are paying through their rates and taxes for the minority to enjoy this privilege. Hon. Members opposite say that it is not a large fee—£25. It those people want that education, let them

pay the full price, which is £400. Who pays the other £375? The taxpayer and the ratepayer, irrespective of their income. The Supplementary Benefits Commission pays through its supplementary benefits payment of rent and rates and goodness knows what so that a small group shall retain an out-dated privilege.
I have made long speeches about this in the past, but now I would only congratulate the Government on at last having grasped the nettle, on at last trying to introduce at least into the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh a system that is fair and meets the needs of modern society in which we live. We cannot have a modern system of education in Edinburgh unless we make this change.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Members who say "Rubbish" do not live in Edinburgh.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I live in Edinburgh, and I shouted "Rubbish".

Mr. Willis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the misguided few in Edinburgh who support fee-paying. But even the Education Committee in Edinburgh supported the Bill. It was the Burgh Council that turned it down, not the education experts on the Education Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: Talk to them now.

Mr. Willis: The Education Committee was not against the proposal.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and hope that the change will be made in Edinburgh as quickly as possible, so that we can have a sensible system of education.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) rightly said that the two local authorities most directly concerned are Glasgow and Edinburgh. The main arguments have been fully canvassed in Committee, but I should like to put two points about Glasgow.
Can the Minister now say anything about the physical problems that will arise in Glasgow as a result of the change? Almost all our fee-paying selective schools are concentrated in or near the city centre, where a small


number of people in relation to our total population live. Precisely how can the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Glasgow Education Authority can change its system to territorial comprehensives by using these schools? We have no surplus of accommodation and no surplus of teachers; we have a shortage of teachers.
Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that the only way is by a major bussing operation, by bringing children from the suburbs in buses to attend schools in the city centres and calling them territorial comprehensives when they are nothing of the sort? This is not comprehensive education. It is not a territorial comprehensive system if children are brought in buses from miles outside in the suburbs into the city. What could he the territorial area for the Boys High School, for Allan Glen's, for Notre Dame?
The right hon. Gentleman may abolish fee-paying schools. He may abolish selective schools, but he cannot in Glasgow, at least for 30, 40 or 50 years, create a proper territorial comprehensive system with the stock of schools we have. Mention has been made of fees. Fees are not the major issue. If they are, why do not hon. Members opposite agitate against the schools with big fees? If big fees create privileged education, why not agitate against those schools which charge £200, £300, £400 or £500? Instead, they go for schools where the fee is 10s. a week. There may be a tiny fraction of the population which cannot afford even that fee but there are many thousands of children whose parents cannot afford the Gordonstouns of this world. If fees matter, why not go to the barricades and attack the high fee schools? Why go for the schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow where the fees are so small?
The truth is that the Government are out to destroy selective education—that is the issue. In Committee, I offered to vote with the Government if, in exchange for the abolition of these fees, they would agree to retain the schools in their present form as selective schools, some as single-sex schools. It would be a good bargain to bring stability to education and we would not have what could be the appalling situation with schools

switching backwards and forwards from selective to comprehensive and fee-paying to non-fee-paying. It is important to avoid this switching about in Scottish education. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a compromise and allow selection to remain while abolishing fees?
We object so strongly to this proposal because it will not bring equality—far from it. It will entrench inequality. I have no basis for these figures but I estimate that more than nine out of ten parents in Glasgow could, with a little sacrifice, afford to present their children for entry to these schools. Indeed, it might be 19 out of 20 parents. But at any rate it is the vast majority.
What are the Government replacing this system with? They will no longer have the situation where bright kids from different areas go to these schools. Instead of academic selection, there will be rigid class selection, in which the best education, with no shortage of teachers, will be concentrated in nice areas. Instead of asking themselves whether they can afford to spend 10s. a week in fees, parents will ask whether they can afford £6,000 or £7,000 to buy a bungalow in a nice part of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
One of the problems is that the way our cities are planned means that society is becoming more and more stratified. We have the working-class areas, the executive areas—in this part of England, the stockbroker belt. Opportunities for social mix are becoming less and less. If we are to have a competitive society with equality of opportunity, we must get away from rigid class divisions. But more rigid class divisions will be created in Edinburgh and Glasgow by this proposal. We have some of it already. In some areas, there is a bad teacher shortage; in other areas there is not. In some areas, a large proportion of the children stay on after school-leaving age; in other areas a higher proportion leave.
The Government's proposals will make the problem worse. It will be utterly impossible for someone in a rough, tough area, where there are unavoidably, poor education and facilities, to break through. It will be impossible to have schools like the Boys' High School, Allan Glen's and Notre Dame where there is now a good social mix with kids


from all sort of areas. We delude ourselves if we say that the fees matter; they do not. Fees could be abolished tomorrow without reducing the problem. The real problem is selective education which the Bill is to abolish. That is what the Government are after. They will create more rigid class divisions in our society.
This is what we must battle against. We must oppose the Bill with all our strength. [Laughter.] English hon. Members opposite may think that this is funny, but it is not. The Government are creating a tragedy for the community of the year 1990 or 2000. We ought to try to break down the class divisions in our society. More important, we ought to try to provide equality of opportunity for everyone.
We shall not be able to do that so long as we have some areas where the education problems are concentrated and we shall not overcome those problems by saying that we will give 50 quid for teachers in tough areas. These problems cannot be overcome unless there is social mix.
I look forward to the day when we have selective education throughout. Of course it has its problems, for no system is perfect. But the Bill is a tragedy, for it creates more class divisions. The Government are making a terrible blunder and I wish that they would reconsider the Bill. We will not suffer for it and most of our children will not suffer for it, but the consequences of the Government's blunder will be seen in 20 or 30 years.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Dewar: One or two hon. Members have already said that they are sorry that the debate has concentrated on the one issue of fee-paying schools. If that is a tragedy, it is a tragedy which the Opposition are making, for they have fought and agitated about practically nothing else. I do not entirely blame them for that, because I recognise that it is an extraordinarily emotive and important issue.
I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) that in this argument fees are comparatively unimportant. We are talking when discussing this small group of schools about our attitude to the development of the education system in Scotland

and about the future of, for example, selection.
I make no bones about it: I am unashamedly proud to say that I do not approve of selective education as it is represented by these schools. I do not think that an efficient system of selective education can be run. There are far too many distorting factors which are bound to enter into it. The child from the literate home, from the middle-class home, from the home which is educationally aware and educationally ambitious, will always have enormous advantages over the child from the housing scheme area, the child who does not come from that sort of background. With the best will in the world, if an education system is run on out and out selective lines, it has a built-in mix of children from the middle income groups who strive because that is their tradition. That is not necessarily a good thing.
I am sure, too, that on the whole these schools are socially divisive. I recognise much of what has been said about the social mix in one or two of these schools, but many of them inculcate and encourage attitudes which are socially divisive. No one who has mixed with their products and their pupils would disagree with that.
I recognise that there are many divisions, educational and social, in society. I recognise that the comprehensive system, for example, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, means that we will get one area where there is a low education tradition and where only a small percentage of children are likely to go on to higher education and that a school in such an area may become an unfashionable comprehensive. This kind of demarcation may be built in by unfortunate zoning policies, or perhaps inevitable zoning policies, but this fault could be eradicated in many areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] In the system that hon. Members opposite defend and would perpetuate, educational apartheid, the build-in is inevitable. There the creaming off would take place and the élitist, separatist school would be set up and established. That is a much more dangerous and more certain educational stride than the occasional unfortunate—and I agree they may be unfortunate—unsatisfactory zoning arrangements.
Take my city of Aberdeen where we are about to have 10 all-through comprehensive schools. There are two areas out of the 10 where we might say that the kind of satisfactory social mix that we all want does not exist. I regret that. But the system which these schools will replace is riddled with educational apartheid and distinctions about which we shall never do anything unless we are prepared to put through the educational reform for which the Government, by this Bill, are preparing the groundwork.
I do not accept very many of these arguments. There is a tendency, again possibly an understandable tendency, for hon. Members opposite to say that these schools are good schools according to their standards. They may be. I have dissented from that view. But even if it were true, and even if they were desirable in themselves, we must look at the system as a whole. I am sure that the continuance of these schools would have an unfortunate and disastrous effect.
We cannot run an efficient education system on comprehensive lines—and even on the benches opposite there are people who pay lip-service to the idea of comprehensive education—if in a city like Edinburgh or, to a lesser but still significant extent Glasgow we take from every area of the city all those children who are intellectually able and ambitious and cream them off into a small group of élitist schools in the centre. That would not work. The argument is not about whether we are victimising—and I think that we are not—the small group of people who get into these schools at the moment.
We should be thinking about what we are doing for the whole of the education system and the tens and twenties of thousands of children who every year do not get the chance to opt into these privileged institutions but just have to go into the massive schools which, as the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, are under-staffed and underprivileged and educationally inefficient. Those children cannot get out. They are stuck. These schools will continue to be in this state for much longer if the parent who is educationally aware is allowed to opt out and to say, "It is not my business because my little Jennie will not suffer".

I want to harness the ambition which exists among these people, and which is rightly praised by hon. Members opposite, for the benefit of all the schools and children in Scotland.
I am convinced that the Bill is an essential and necessary first step. People have said that this is the thin end of a wedge. I watch with interest and await with hope the report of the Commission on grant-aided schools. I hope that it will not be such an anti-climatic let-down as the report on the public schools. In one sense, for me this is not so much a fear as a hope.
The Bill is a limited step forward. But it is an essential step forward, and I wholeheartedly welcome it and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench on having had the courage to make a start on an extraordinarily difficult and emotional topic.

11.44 p.m.

Mrs. Ewing: On Second Reading I expressed the view that comprehensive education is a good old Scottish custom. In so far as the Bill reverts to this tradition, the principle cannot be under serious attack. Concerning the time scale, criticism could be made and opinions could vary about how it should be put into operation. I have made my comments on that and I will not repeat them. However, that is not a sufficiently strong criticism to enable me to vote against the Bill.
I cannot vote for the Bill because of the existence of Clause 18. I feel strongly and sincerely on the matter of the dismissal of certain teachers. The dismissal of a minority cannot be waved away by the argument that it is just a minority. When minorities have strong principles they are important and their rights must be considered.
I wish to make two brief points. The first relates to entrance into the profession. A new entrant to the teaching profession knows that it will involve registration and he or she knows the present situation in regard to the G.T.C. When he enters the profession he makes a contract on a known basis. He can have no particular grievance, and it would be up to him to change the situation from within. But worthy of consideration are those who


entered the teaching profession on a certain basis which was later changed without their consent.
Their fault is that they committed the human error of not reading the small print. They should have studied a report which vitally concerned them and should have expressed disagreement. It is the lawyers who are accustomed to reading the small print; they are suspicious of it. But the teachers' attitude was one of trust. They did not feel it necessary to become lawyers and to study the matter as they should have done.
My second point is that, fortunately, in the end only a small minority was dismissed. There is strong evidence, if one studies Parliamentary Questions and Answers over the period, to support the view that vast numbers of teachers registered reluctantly and against their principles. Should people be asked to act against their principles and to alter the basis on which many had been teaching for a lifetime?
Bitterness has been caused in a profession which should be without bitterness. It is a profession which has so many other problems, staff shortages, large classes and other difficulties. Hon. Members will have received countless letters from teachers who had no particular scruple against registration but who deplored the dismissal of their qualified colleagues. Petitions were sent to me, as I am sure they have been sent to other hon. Members, and were handed over.
Whatever solution is found to the problem, it cannot have been right to dismiss qualified teachers. I feel so strongly about the matter that I cannot support the Bill. I say so with the utmost sincerity. The situation is delicate and could get worse. The whole issue is alive again. It is not dead and buried. It may affect the training colleges and entrants may go into the profession with feelings of bitterness.
There must be a solution. Clever draftsmen must be able to find a way out so as not to cause injustice to entrants. Surely an amnesty could yet be offered to the teachers who were dismissed. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider the matter. I am sure that he is a clever Minister in framing Clauses. I appeal to him to find a solution to enable these teachers to be brought back into a short-staffed profession.
Anyone who suggests that the teachers were insincere in what they did would do them an injustice. Many of them were in my constituency. One was a headmaster, and others were members of E.I.S. They did not feel it right that their contract of service should be altered. It is unusual for a person of repute to be dismissed not for an act of commission, but for doing nothing. That cannot be right. It is not common sense. We have large classes and a shortage of teachers. Perhaps the Minister will consider that he has made a mistake in the matter and will try to find a solution.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: It would be churlish of some of us if we did not welcome the Bill. It is not generally known that even in England in 1944 there was a decision to get rid of fee-paying schools. The educational set up in England is different from that of Scotland, but we on this side would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend for bringing forward a reforming Measure which England abolished in 1944.
We are grateful for the setting up of a General Teaching Council, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was an education administrator. I remember how the teaching profession longed so much for a General Teaching Council. It longed for professional status. It longed for the time when it would receive professional recognition on the lines of the British Medical Association—the B.M.A. as it is known.
We do not challenge people's sincerity on this issue. When a person finds himself at variance with his colleagues, it is wrong that he should find himself out in the cold because he does not want to join the majority.
Perhaps I might give an analogy from my experience as a miner. My trade union decided that a miner should not be allowed to go underground unless he wore a hard hat. Some said that they would not wear a hard hat. They were good, honest, decent people, but we had to say to them: "If you will not wear a hard hat you cannot go underground." This was not an infringement of freedom: this was a decision made by the majority.
When we went further and decided that men should not smoke underground, some said that they wanted to smoke underground. But the majority said: "You will not smoke underground. If you want to become part of the industry you will have to do what the majority want to do."
It is a rather strange argument that a minority can complain of having their freedom taken away from them because the majority have made what I should consider to be a sensible decision.
I will not pursue this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I see that you are rather anxious about the point that I am making. But in discussing freedom and decency, I should point out that those people in the mining industry were just as decent as those in the teaching profession. If people decide to go out-with it, they go outwith it because they themselves have decided in their own consciences to do so.
Some significant facts emerged during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) came out firmly in favour of the principle of selective education. We on this side of the House do not accept that principle.
One of the amazing points brought cut by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was that we were not only discussing fee-paying schools, but the question of the 11-plus, or the 12-plus as it is known in Scotland, and the five-plus. We consider that this is a ridiculous concept to apply in modern twentieth century education. To talk of freedom of choice and freedom in education is absurd when some of these fee-paying schools are applying the policy and principle of selectivity. Where is the freedom in education there?
We have argued against selectivity and against the idea that we should have a system of education that writes off 60 per cent. of the school population and decides that only 40 per cent. may go on to some spheres of higher education. One of my greatest pleasures as an education administrator in my county was to see the abolition of primary and post-primary schooling.
Some of us on this side of the House have as much experience of education

as hon. Gentlemen opposite have. We do not challenge their sincerity, but some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had the advantage of Scottish education. Some of them turned their backs on our system, and it is therefore difficult for us sometimes to listen to lectures on the kind of educational policy that we should have in Scotland.
I know that my constituents would not want to go back to fee-paying schools. I know that the constituents of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) do not want to go back to them, either. I was for a time Chairman of the Education Committee in Fife, and I know that even in the great town of St. Andrews, the seat of the university, the people there do not want to go back to primary or post-primary fee-paying education. I played a part in abolishing the fee-paying system in that county.
I said in Committee, and on Second Reading, that the Opposition had taken a trouncing on the basics of the argument. The people of Scotland do not want fee-paying schools. They do not want selectivity in education. They want a system of education which will give real equality of opportunity to the children. Since this Government have been in power the output of students from the universities has been greater than ever before. I have tabled Questions which show that the number of children going for "O" level certificates is higher than ever before. The policy against selectivity, and for comprehensive education, is paying off to the extent that it is opening a real gateway of opportunity for the education of our children. I give the Bill a very warm welcome, and I congratulate my right hon. Gentleman and hon. Friend on carrying it through the House.

11.58 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: The arguments for and against fee-paying schools have been deployed over and over again. I do not propose to imitate the gramophone record performance of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) who has treated us to the same performance on many occasions.

Mr. Willis: A very good one, too.

Earl of Dalkeith: I rise merely to place on record a final protest, in the


strongest possible terms, on behalf of the many parents in my constituency, and throughout Edinburgh, who are deeply distressed at the Government's action in abolishing fee-paying schools. I believe that a great many of them—and many more parents outside—recognise this manœuvre for what it is—a pure Socialist doctrinaire, levelling-down policy to deprive parents of any form of freedom.
This will do the Government no good at all when the votes are counted. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He can afford to ignore public opinion in Edinburgh, because he is not standing for election again. He can leave it to his wretched successor to carry the burden.
If the Government want to hammer nails into their own coffin, who am I to stop them? But I bitterly resent the fact that they are doing it at the expense of children and parents and their freedom, and, what is more important, the freedom of responsible local authorities to decide what sort of education they want to provide. I therefore register my protest in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Millan: The Bill generally has had a welcome from the House. It contains many useful provisions. At this late hour I shall not attempt to outline them, but I am glad that they have had a general welcome. I want to say a few things in reply to the points raised about the abolition of fee paying—not the abolition of fee-paying schools, which rather suggests that the schools are to be blown up or otherwise demolished at the date when the Bill comes into operation, but the abolition of fee-paying in local authority schools in Scotland.
I can say for the Opposition, at least on this point, that they have maintained a consistent attitude all the way through. They started in a state of hysteria about this modest proposal, and this lasted right to the end. That attitude seems to come pretty naturally from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but I was slightly surprised at some of his right hon. and hon Friends. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) repeated the pledge that a future Conservative Government would restore the right to have fee paying.
It would be out of order for me to deal with such a hypothetical and wildly improbable set of circumstances as the return of a Conservative Government, but I find this pledge quite remarkable, apart from anything else, in the light of the history of this issue in England and Wales. English and Welsh Members opposite—if there are any Welsh Members opposite—must find it strange to hear this pledge apparently being given on behalf of a Conservative Opposition.
I should be a little more impressed by this pledge if I thought that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire had attempted to persuade their own local education authorities to introduce fee paying in their areas. I know that their local education authorities are not interested in this, and that the hon. Members would get short shrift if they suggested that their local education authorities should introduce fee paying in their areas.
All the way through, the burden of the argument of hon. Members opposite has been that in the absence of a certain element of fee paying in local authority schools there was a deficiency in the education provided by local education authorities. If they do not accept that proposition I find it rather difficult to understand what all the fuss has been about.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman might have listened to my opening speech, which I kept short owing to the lateness of the hour. I made it clear that in rural areas in the North of Scotland—such as the area that I represent—where the population is dispersed, different systems are appropriate. We say that local authorities should be able to do what is best for their areas.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member's evangelical fervour does not extend to his own constituency. All that I would say, in company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—and I speak as a Glasgow Member—is "Please leave Glasgow alone."
The issue, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has recognised almost exclusively among his hon. Friends, is that of selection. I have never made any secret of


that proposition. I should have found it easier to argue with the Opposition on this issue—and would have respected such arguments as we have heard from them rather more—if we had ever had from them a clear statement of their views about the selective system. We have gone through a tremendous amount of argument on the Bill and at the end of it I am as unclear of the Opposition's policy on selection as I was at the beginning.

Mr. Willis: So are they.

Mr. Millan: So are they—as my right hon. Friend says.
I have made my view clear on many occasions. I look forward very much to the abolition of the selective system. That is the basis of Government policy. Its object is the promotion of comprehensive education in secondary schools. In the light of that policy, I make no excuse for the fact that I find fee paying inconsistent with our philosophy and, from the point of view of this Government, a complete anachronism. I am, therefore, happy to have been associated with this Bill and the abolition of fee paying. Parental choice is important, of course it is, but the selective system does not provide parental choice. I would except the need for the widening of choice but this can be done through the comprehensive system which, in Scotland, is more part of the tradition than it is in England, and we want to see it extended.
The Opposition appears to be thinking in élitist terms. The hon. Member for

Moray and Nairn talked tonight of producing able pupils and I spoke of the need to value excellence, I agree, but we must not look for ability and excellence in a small minority of children to whom the whole educational system is directed. We cannot run the kind of economy we have in this country at present unless we produce large numbers of capable children from our educational institutions, and that is the aim of the present Government and one which we have, in fact, demonstrated we are achieving.

I accept that there are inequalities in the educational system and not all these inequalities arise only from the selective system or from fee paying arrangements. There are other inequalities, for example, those which arise from differences in home backgrounds. Those are something else and much more difficult to eradicate, but the difference between Her Majesty's present Government and the Opposition is that we wish to abolish these inequalities while right hon. and hon. Members opposite advocate policies which would perpetuate those inequalities. That is the difference between us, and this modest proposal which we make goes some way towards reducing the inequalities in our Scottish educational system.

It is not, in itself, a major proposal, but it is in a Bill containing many other useful proposals and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 107.

Division No. 245.]
AYES
[12.8 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gardner, Tony


Barnett, Joel
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Binns, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gregory, Arnold


Blackburn, F.
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Boston, Terence
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Haseldine, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Eadie, Alex
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ellis, John
Hilton, W. S.


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Horner, John


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hunter, Adam




Hynd, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rowlands, E.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Manuel, Archie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mapp, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Millan, Brucs
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Judd, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tuck, Raphael


Lawson, George
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Luard, Evan
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McBride, Neil
Norwood, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


McCann, John
Oram, Albert E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


MacColl, James
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


MacDermot, Niall
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


McGuire, Michael
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Park, Trevor
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winnick, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey



MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pink, R. Bonner


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Royle, Anthony


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, R. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hunt, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; Westminster)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Catlicart)


Corfield, F. V.
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, A. W.


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Nott, John



Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

MEANING OF APPOINTED DAY

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 13, leave out "the foregoing section" and insert "section 1 of this Act".

12.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: May we have an explanation whether there is an approved trap for otters?

Mr. Buchan: There is no approved trap, as was made clear throughout the Committee stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 1

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 21, at end insert—
() The Minister shall not make an order under the foregoing subsection with respect to the transfer of premises appearing to him to form part of premises held by a local authority for the purposes of relevant and other functions unless he has given notice to the authority of his proposal to make the order and has specified in the notice the time within which the authority may request that the order shall be in accordance with the following provisions of this subsection; and where the authority does so request and the Minister decides to make the order, then—

(a) the order shall secure that the transfer is for such period only as the Minister may determine, being a period ending not later than the end of the period of seven years beginning with the transfer date; and
(b) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the other terms of the transfer shall be such as may be specified in the order."

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: In welcoming the Amendment I suggest that it is distressing that it has taken the Government so long to accept a point advanced first in Committee in this House, then on Report and again in Committee in another place. Finally the Government saw fit to accept the arguments which had been put forward—and they did so on Report in the House of Lords.
This is a classic example of the success of the Opposition in the face of an immense amount of obstruction from the Government, who have taken so long to realise the rightness of the reasonable arguments which my hon. Friends adduced. We are naturally glad to support the Amendment, but it would have been more helpful had the Government accepted our case in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

SURRENDER OF LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 9, line 7, leave out "of duty" and insert:
by reference to which duty was".

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to put beyond doubt the intention that rebates of duty paid on surrendered vehicle licences should be calculated on the basis of the annual rate.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 10, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. For the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1962 and of any other provision of that Act and any subsequent enactment relating to the keeping of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads (including such an enactment contained in this Act and in particular section 10(3) of this Act), a person keeps such a vehicle on a public road if


he causes it to be on such a road for any period, however short, when it is not in use there.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the new Clause, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to define the phrase "keeping a vehicle on a public road" in the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962 and subsequent enactments, with the result that duty is chargeable on a vehicle when it is kept on a public road for any period, however short.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I understand that the Government wish to introduce this provision because, as a result of recent cases in the courts, it has proved impossible to make certain charges stick when it has been argued that keeping a vehicle on the public highway meant, in fact, keeping it on the public highway for a very long period. I gather that it has not been possible to demonstrate precisely how long was constituted by "keeping" in this context and that the courts have not been prepared to find cases of this kind proved.
Having taken another look at the legislation, the Government have come up with the new Clause. In other words, instead of trying to find a reasonable way of dealing with the matter—a way which would have enabled the Government to make the Bill enforceable and at the same time protect the individual who keeps his vehicle on the public highway for a very short period—the Government have, in an effort to get the legislation through speedily, trodden on the rights of the individual by saying that anybody who keeps a vehicle on the public highway for even a split second shall be liable to pay the duty.
This is, to say the least, a careless way of drafting legislation. The Government should have devised a form of words which would have protected, say, the person who literally pushes a vehicle on to the highway and then immediately removes it. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that it is not intended to take action against people whose vehicles appear on the highway for such a short period, although I appreciate that even an assurance of that kind will not form part of the Bill.

Mr. John Nott: I oppose the new Clause, and I will explain why at considerable length.
By the means of an Adjournment debate, I tried to raise in the House for the second time the problems which face my constituents in the Isles of Scilly. I have failed to do so because Mr. Speaker has fairly pointed out that while this Measure was in the course of proceeding through Parliament, it was necessary for the matter to be raised on the Bill rather than in an Adjournment debate.
It may be wondered how it is possible within the rules of order for me to bring the Isles of Scilly into a discussion of this Amendment, and I shall explain how I intend to do so.
In the first place, the Amendment relates to the "keeping" and that is the crucial word
… of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads …".
I believe that the Amendment has been put down partially out of spite against my constituents in the Isles of Scilly, and I shall say why I believe that to be the case.
When, in another place, Lord Winter-bottom moved this Amendment, he stated:
The difficulty with the word 'keeping' is that it implies keeping for an unspecified period of time, and this was made explicit by a ruling in the course of a Divisional Court hearing in 1962 of an appeal against conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle. It is becoming difficult to bring prosecutions and will increasingly become so if the Amendment is not agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March, 1969; Vol. 300, col. 1041.]
The Government have produced this Amendment because in certain circumstances it is not at present possible successfully to prosecute a vehicle owner who has kept a vehicle on a public road.
During the Report stage, I said:
The yield"—
from taxing vehicles in the Isles of Scilly:
is likely to be very small, for an important reason. Section 6(6) of the Vehicle (Excise) Act, 1962, exempts vehicles from road fund licence which are intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in a person's occupation to other land in his occupation. More importantly, Section 24 defines a public road as,
'a road which is repairable at public expense.'


On the mainland it is the presumption of law that where a road is being maintained by the inhabitants it is a highway maintained at public expense, but in the Isles of Scilly the land is almost wholly owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, a Crown body established under its own management Acts, and nine-tenths of the roads in the Isles of Scilly may not rank as public roads' at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1189.]
An official of the Ministry of Transport wrote to the Clerk of the Council of the Isles of Scilly describing the position there. In the second paragraph, he said, quite accurately:
As I see it, the position may be summed up as follows: there seems to be no dispute that the roads in Hugh Town are public roads, and, accordingly, any vehicle used or kept on those roads must be licensed, if it not exempt under the provisions of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962. If the other roads cannot be shown to be public roads, then any vehicle used only on those roads would not need to be licensed.
12.30 a.m.
Nine-tenths of the roads in the islands are possibly not public roads, although this is a matter which in due course will no doubt be elucidated by access to counsel and further discussions with the Ministry. If they are public roads, vehicle licensing will apply for the first time to a large number of my constituents in the Isles of Scilly unless this Amendment is rejected. If it is not, vehicles will not be able to be kept in Hugh Town, which is the main town in the islands and where the only public roads on the islands exist. In Section 6(6)(b) of the 1962 Act—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will link what he is saying with the Amendment we are discussing, I hope.

Mr. Nott: Certainly; I was trying to do so. I was trying to point out that we are dealing here with the definition of vehicles kept on public roads. In the Vehicles Licensing Act, 1962, to which this Amendment refers, it is quite clear that if a county council is satisfied that a mechanically propelled vehicle is intended to be used on public roads for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week, the vehicle may not be eligible for licensing.
Here we have a part of the United Kingdom where nine-tenths of the roads may not be public roads, for certain legal reasons and because they have been

built by the local inhabitants with their own labour and wholly at their own expense. On the remaining one-tenth of the roads it is most unlikely any inhabitant of the islands will use them for more than six miles in any calendar week. Therefore, if this Amendment is carried, many of my constituents in the islands will not be able to avoid, quite legally, paying taxation because their vehicles may not be kept in Hugh Town.
I make a final appeal to the Minister. This is the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity to raise this matter. I understand the wish of the Minister and his Department to arrive at a neat blanket coverage of the whole United Kingdom for license duty, but nine-tenths of these roads were built by the inhabitants and no public money was involved. Only a small fraction of the roads in the islands may be classified as public roads, and if the Amendment is carried the inhabitants will not be able to keep their cars in Hugh Town. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupted wishes to make a comment he should come into the House to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member may make an intervention when outside the House.

Mr. Nott: I hope the Ministry will use its discretion, if it has any, to allow these inhabitants to use their own roads without paying the licence fee. I hope the Minister will try to understand the unique situation in this part of the United Kingdom where the cost of living is infinitely higher than elsewhere. In the Scottish Highlands the main services are heavily subsidised, but there is no subsidy to St. Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. The cost of many items is up to 50 per cent. more than on the mainland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the economy of Scilly on the Amendment.

Mr. Nott: I shall come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I said earlier that I had sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but was understandably told by you that I could not raise this point while the Bill was going through the House. So I am relating my remarks to the Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman but,


with all the sympathy in the world, he must keep in order.

Mr. Nott: Could the Minister tell me why the Amendment has to go through in this form? If it must, is he still able to exercise his discretion in some way to ensure that the islanders are not unfairly being forced to pay a tax? Why cannot his Department recognise the unique situation of this part of the United Kingdom and the disgraceful manner in which it is being treated?

Mr. Carmichael: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
There are two ways of looking at the problem the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has raised. One is the way in which he looked at it, which is that the islanders are being treated unfairly in being asked to pay the tax. We should pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising this tonight, and the sincere way in which he did so. The other way is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who pointed out on Report that the islanders have always needed to pay road tax, but because of an administrative difficulty, the Isles of Scilly being neither a county nor a county borough, not coming within a county or county borough, they have been excused. They have been allowed this concession because of the accident of the law for a fairly long time.
This is not just a question of making a neat and tidy solution giving coverage over the whole country. Now that under the Bill the Minister instead of the county councils or county boroughs will be responsible for the collection of tax there is no way of legally excluding the Isles of Scilly.
Therefore, while I have every sympathy for anyone who has been in the position of the islanders for such a long time, there appears to me to be no way of excusing them from paying the tax. The amount of public roads on the islands does not really enter into the matter. The question of the six miles per week applies to specially-licensed vehicles travelling perhaps between different parts of a farm, or between one works and another over a very short distance. Tax in respect of such vehicles will be paid at the rate applicable to agricultural vehicles, some types of public works vehicles or contractors' plant.
I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming. The matter was discussed at great length in Committee and on Report, and I do not see any possibility of our reaching agreement, because of the historic nature of the case and the fact that the Bill merely catches up with a discrepancy under the previous Act.
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked for an assurance that a person who merely brought his vehicle on to the road would not be liable under this new provision. It is not for me to give such an assurance. That is a matter for the courts. The difficulty is that the word "keeping" implies keeping for a period of time. This was made explicit in a 1962 finding by a Divisional Court hearing of an appeal against a conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle on the road. The court interpreted the word "keeping" in that case in a way detrimental to the Minister and the intention of the Act.
I am sure that the courts, in their wisdom, will be anxious, as always, to interpret correctly when assessing cases of persons merely parking vehicles on the roads, but, obviously, I cannot define this matter for them. I cannot even envisage a situation in which it would be possible to define the intention of the individual taking his vehicle on to the road.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 11

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 10

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 12, line 34, leave out "earlier" and insert "first-mentioned".

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss the following two Lords Amendments, No. 5 and No. 6.

Mr. Carmichael: These are drafting Amendments to subsection (2) of Clause 11, moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords. They all achieve the same end. They make it clear that the reference is, as intended, to a notice


of non-mechanical propulsion, and not to a subsequent revocation of that notice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 13, line 16, after "period" insert "or at any time".

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which was moved by the Government in Committee in another place, rectifies a minor error.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 12

ALTERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO PHYSICAL FITNESS OF DRIVERS

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 15, line 30, leave out from "means" to second "of" in line 31 and insert:
any such test of competence as is mentioned in section 99(1)(a).

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendments No. 9 and 33.

Mr. Carmichael: These Amendments, which were moved by the Government in Committee in another place, relate to the provisions governing tests which authorise the granting of driving licences.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

Clause 16

REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER AND IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES.

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 22, line 15, leave out "prescribed" and insert:
determined by or under the regulations".

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Minister to "determine" the persons to whom he may provide information from the vehicle records "by or under" regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26

ADMISSIBILITY OF RECORDS AS EVIDENCE

Lords Amendment No. 31: In page 30, line 12, after "Act" insert:
or a part of any other records maintained by the Minister with respect to vehicles.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 32, in page 30, line 17, leave out "the authority in question" and insert:
, in the case of records maintained by a local authority, by the authority".

Mr. Carmichael: The purpose of these Amendments is to enable a statement in a document purporting to be an extract of the records maintained by the Minister with respect to the plating and testing of goods vehicles to be admissible as evidence in any prosecution brought under Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Road Safety Act, 1967.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1960 RELATING TO DRIVERS, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 41, line 46, at end insert—
… At the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 (which contains transitional provisions for the grant of drivers' licences for heavy goods vehicles to persons in the habit of driving such vehicles) there shall be inserted the following:—
The reference in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph to the driving of a heavy


goods vehicle does not include a reference to the driving of such a vehicle of a prescribed class or of such a vehicle while it is being used in prescribed circumstances.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent drivers of specialised vehicles from obtaining a general heavy goods vehicle driving licence simply by virtue of their driving experience of a particular specialised vehicle, for instance, engineering plant. Such a possibility would be contrary to the interests of road safety. Such drivers should have to take a driving test.

Question put and agreed to.

WAITING RESTRICTION (CHORLEY ROAD, SWINTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am sorry at this late hour to delay the House, but I have a rather important constituency matter which I wish to raise, namely, the parking ban in Chorley Road, in Swinton, which is causing a great deal of anxiety to a large number of my constituents. I am an unrepentant believer in the right of a public inquiry at all times, and even though since 1930 a large number and variety of Ministers of Transport of Conservative and Labour colour have used these powers, I still do not think they are morally right. Perhaps I could refer briefly to them.
By section 7(4) of the Roads Act, 1920, the Minister was empowered to make orders prohibiting and restricting the use of roads by vehicles, subject to certain exemptions: (a) on application by a county council, and (b)—this is the important factor—after holding a public inquiry. The situation in 1920 seemed to me to be eminently satisfactory, and had it prevailed today my constituents would have had no cause for worry and anxiety. But, unfortunately, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, revoked the section to which I have referred and replaced it with Section 46, under which the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry became discretionary. It is the discretionary element which has

caused the anxiety in my constituency. Despite the fact that a large number of Ministers of Transport, both Conservative and Labour, have used these powers, I still feel that morally it is indefensible.
For reasons best known to themselves, certain people have made what might be termed inaccurate and misleading statements about this problem which have not been very helpful to me in my fight with the Ministry to obtain a public inquiry. Perhaps we should get the record straight, because it has been stated that this ban is a public scandal which was imposed in the face of strong opposition from the local council by Whitehall by some men in the Ministry of Transport who possibly had never seen the area.
The facts are that the council has never opposed the ban. In fact, it asked for the ban, and it even asked for its extension. When the critical decision was taken in the council chamber, it was carried without opposition. No councillor spoke against it and nobody voted against it. It was the council which wrote to the Ministry of Transport stating that it would like the order for the ban to come into effect on 14th March.
If a public inquiry had been held—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can still find it in his power even at this late hour to grant a public inquiry—it would have allowed both sides to state their views. I have been informed since the ban has been in force that a considerable number of people have been impressed with the smooth working of traffic and believe the ban to be a good thing. Nevertheless, without any doubt, there is considerable opposition to the ban by a large number of people in my constituency, and this is revealed by the very substantial petition which has been handed in to the Ministry.
The ban has been under discussion since 1964. The delay in introducing the ban from 1964 until the present time may have caused tradespeople to feel that it would not be introduced. The time lag may have been a contributory factor in causing people not to ask at the appropriate time for a public inquiry. This point must be borne in mind.
Despite statements to the contrary, the council minutes and the correspondence clearly reveal that the parking of heavy


vehicles in Chorley Road has been causing anxiety for some time and was the larger single major factor behind the imposition of the ban in the first instance.
I should like the Minister to look again at the type of notice which is printed to indicate that a ban is to be introduced. They look like official or semi-official documents and are not easily understood by the public at whom they are directed. I hope the Ministry will look again at the wording and the publication of the ban to make sure that it is explicit enough to allow ordinary people to know what action to take.
In the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and some of my constituents, Mr. Charnley's letter reveals strong and clear arguments why there should have been a public inquiry. Mr. Charnley may not in terms, have asked for a public inquiry, but it is implicit in the wording of his letter. Therefore, his letter should have been given further consideration.
I realise that the council asked for the ban to be introduced, to come into force on 14th March. But in response to a letter by Mrs. Adams, a shopkeeper in the street—a letter signed by over 30 fellow shopkeepers—I approached the Ministry to ask them to delay the ban and to hold a public inquiry so that both sides could state their views. The council agreed to support me in my request.
I appreciate that all due procedures have been followed, but I am an unrepentant believer in the need for and importance of a public inquiry into each and every parking ban in which there is the slightest opposition. In a democracy people who either approve of or disapprove of a ban should be given the opportunity to state their views clearly. I very much hope that the Ministry will agree to hold a public inquiry.

12.58 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his case so clearly. I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining fully why it was necessary to impose restrictions on waiting by vehicles in Chorley Road, Swinton.
I would first remind my hon. Friend that Chorley Road is part of the A.6 London to Carlisle trunk road and is, therefore, an important part of the national freight route system along which the free flow of traffic must be maintained.
I am, of course, well aware that in those cases where a trunk road passes through an urban area, such as is the case at Swinton, there can be some clash of interest between the need to keep traffic moving and the interests of local residents and traders. In these circumstances, I am very conscious of the need not only to impose the minimum of restriction necessary to achieve the desired result, but also, in framing the regulations, that local interests should be fully consulted at an early stage and their views taken into account.
For some years parked vehicles at or near the junction of Chorley Road and Station Road caused congestion and impeded the free flow of traffic. With the ever increasing number of vehicles coming on to the roads this congestion gradually got worse and it became apparent that something would soon have to be done to ease the position. In particular, in recent times parked vehicles at this junction hampered the proper operation of traffic lights and prevented the safe and free flow of traffic on this busy trunk road.
As long ago as 1964, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, we thought that some restrictions on waiting would have to be introduced. The divisional road engineer—who is closely in touch with the local situation and who knows his area in some detail—therefore discussed on the site what we had in mind with officers of the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council. He also consulted the police.
Following these discussions the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council approved in principle that measures were needed to deal with the situation, and at a subsequent meeting held on 10th January, 1966, the council endorsed the proposals. Further consideration to the scheme was given by the divisional road engineer, the council's officers, and the police and finally on 10th June 1968 the town clerk wrote to the divisional road engineer confirming that the council had no objection to the revised proposals,


which had now been designed to cover the stretch of trunk road from Station Road to Cemetery Road. This was an extension of the scheme originally proposed in 1966. In passing, I should tell my hon. Friend that the council asked for the extension of the scheme.
In September, 1968, a public notice of the intention to make the necessary traffic regulation order was published in the local press and in the London Gazette and, in addition, the local council, acting as our agents, posted notices on the length of road concerned. Three weeks were then allowed for the receipt of any objections to these proposals.
My hon. Friend has made reference to the type of notice that is posted on lamp posts and so on in the proposed area of restriction. To some extent this is a legal document. Nevertheless, I will look into the matter to see whether we can simplify it for the general public.
Following this wide local publicity, only six objections were received, each of which came from local traders who feared the imposition of these restrictions would have an adverse effect on their trade. None of the objectors mentioned or sought a public inquiry. In view of the nature and number of the objections received, we did not consider that such an inquiry would produce any new evidence and considered that it was not, therefore, justified. Having regard to the large numbers of orders which are now made every year, it would be administratively unworkable to hold a public inquiry into each and every order, as was at one time required under the 1920 Roads Act. It would mean well over 1,000 inquiries a year on traffic orders alone. My hon. Friend will realise that conditions have changed very much since the days of the 1920 Roads Act.
My right hon. Friend decided to make the order as advertised and to impose waiting restrictions from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily but, except between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, to allow vehicles to wait to load and unload. The decision to make the order was conveyed to each of the objectors on 8th November, 1968, and during the four months that elapsed between that date and the making of the order there was no further reaction either

from the original objectors or anyone else.
The order was made on 6th March, 1969, and it was only after that date that we received the first request for a public inquiry. This was contained in a letter from one of the local traders—a newsagent—which was forwarded by my hon. Friend. Since the order came into operation there has been a considerable volume of correspondence concerning these restrictions, but no further evidence has come to our notice which had not already been fully considered.
I am given to understand that local residents and traders have said that they are now willing themselves to meet the full costs of a public inquiry if my right hon. Friend would agree to its being held. But the question of cost is not the real issue. If we thought that a public inquiry was necessary or desirable, public funds would be made available, but this is not the case. We believe that very full publicity has been given to these proposed restrictions over the past four years, and that no new facts would be brought to light at such an inquiry. I again emphasise that these restrictions have been imposed only following full and detailed investigation on the site by the Minister's local representative in full collaboration with the local authority and the police.
I would make the point that for a number of traders conditions are no more difficult since the imposition of the restrictions because a number of traders' customers were already prevented from parking their cars in front of their premises owing to parked lorries. I should make it clear that waiting is still permitted in the adjacent side-streets. An off-street car park is available between Crompton Street and Church Street, about 300 to 400 yards east of the shops concerned.
It is true to say that with the ever-increasing volume of traffic coming on to our roads it is difficult not to cause a clash of interests when taking the steps necessary to deal with traffic congestion. This is always a problem, and often an inescapable one. It causes us particular concern, and we always seek to find the solution which will bring benefit to the greatest number of people. I believe


that the restrictions we have been discussing are the best answer for Chorley Road.
I should like, now, to make some reference to inflammatory and irresponsible statements reported in the local Press. The Manchester Evening News of 12th April this year reported a local Tory councillor as having said:
Even though the Swinton and Pendlebury Council had opposed the ban it had still been imposed.
I now quote from the minutes of the highways and lighting committee of the local council at its meeting on 13th May, 1968:
Details were submitted of the No Waiting and No Loading and Unloading Order proposed by the Ministry of Transport in respect of Chorley Road, Swinton.… It was resolved that the divisional road engineer's proposals be approved.
There is no question there of any opposition from the council.
The Swinton Journal of 17th April last, reporting a protest made by local shopkeepers, quoted a London Tory as saying:

The fight is not with the local council. It is with Whitehall who seem to be afflicted with this yellow line madness. Some man in the Ministry of Transport who possibly has never seen the area felt that he knew better.
I strongly resent someone domiciled in London speaking in those derogatory terms about civil servants in my Department. I say without fear of contradiction that the D.R.E. and his staff know their area very well indeed.
My hon. Friend has faithfully put to me the case made by his constituents about the need for a public inquiry, but for the reasons which I have outlined this evening I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will now understand why there will be no inquiry. The shopkeepers concerned might well find, as shopkeepers all over the country have found, that parking restrictions bring increased business when people find that they can get about the streets in safety.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past One o'clock.